result will be a stronger article          I do not want to hide Darwin but give him is place where he belongs as a historical figure and definition  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 Endlers position position  high up in this discussion page is a current scientific one and very closely linked with Darwins Excatly it is A current one Not THE current one making that THE definition is WPNOR     I agree with Slrubenstein and think Darwin belongs at top Kim I still cant see the prob with top containing a darwin defn  a statement that darwins thinking changed like a good scientist  current defn On readability the tortured remnants of a previous editors prose needs to go  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 Darwins 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        You confuse hiding Darwin versus focusses on current usage first and add darwins definitions in the history section   Okay but with all due respect you confuse starting with Darwin for focussing on Darwin  They arent 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        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