"result will be a stronger article.    |  Talk  
1. I do not want to hide Darwin, but give him is place where he belongs, as a historical figure and definition. 2. What I have seen in the old talk before I arrived, and during the time that I have been here, is that all specialists try it work on this and leave disillustioned.  
  
  . I agree with Slrubenstein above. I have long argued that my position, Endler's position (position 1 high up in this discussion page) is a current scientific one and very closely linked with Darwin's.
Excatly, it is A current one. Not THE current one. making that THE definition is WP:NOR.  
  
It confuses because the old definitions are incorrect.  
Kim, I do not see how you can say this unless you agree with Henry Ford that ""history is bunk.""  Most people are interested in history, and there are even scientists who are interested in the history of their science.  That it confuses you does not mean (as I think is now evident) that it will confuse most readers of this encyclopedia.  They understand that things change.  They also understand that trends have beginnings.  It is simply meaningless to say ""the old definition is incorrect.""  If you do not understand why, I urge you to read up on the philosophy of science - definitions are more or less useful.  It was that old definition that led to a line of inquiry that has led evolutionary scientists to more precise and more useful understandings of the process.  If anything, as educators we should show readers how scientists start with one formulation of natural selection and then refine it.  
You know, the fact that you reject Darwin's definition of natural selection does not mean natural selection and the theory of evolution are wrong.  On the contrary, it simply means that science has a history, that scientists debate and refine concepts which necessarily change over time.  Do you think this is a trivial point?  In the United States, at least, you are dead wrong.  If you are not from the US let me tell you, there is a huge ""creationist"" movement which has, on numerous ocassions, had the theory of evolution banned from high schools.  And you should know that one ""argument"" they make is that Darwin was - well, as you say, ""incorrect.""  ""See!"" they exclaim, ""even scientists say Darwin was wrong!  We should no longer teach evolution!""  Obviously, they misunderstand the way science works.  They do not understand that scientists refine and develop theories without necessarily rejecting them.  I think scientists have an obligation to educate people about this.  Showing how scientists accept an idea, and then change its definition or conceptualization by refining it without repudiating it is the best way to accomplish this.    |  Talk 
You confuse hiding Darwin versus focusses on current usage first and add darwin's definitions in the history section.  
Okay, but with all due respect, you confuse starting with Darwin for focussing on Darwin.  They aren't the same.  There are two reasons for starting with Darwin: one, it is a reasonable starting point, two, whatever differences there are between you, Axel, Marco and others, or among different scientists who have published on natural selection, all can agree that Darwin introduced the idea.  Why not just say @@@Natural selection''', as first introduced by Darwin, refered to ....  Since Darwin, evolutionary scientists have revised his definition based on new findings in genetics and molecular biology...?    |  Talk 
The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.. I just do not think starting with an out of data definition does the job. Lets agree to disagree, and I will work on a