Talk:Evolution/Archive 35

message: Comments about the atheist agenda, and redirection to the FAQ.
There needs to be a description about the atheist agenda to promote atheism by evolution materialism. Especially since dawkins has labeled teaching children religion is 'child abuse' like my edit that was just undone. its clearly that such a controversial topic is not only driven by passionate religious individuals as well as atheist naturalists. I think this is evidence since gravity is considered a theory and evolution is considered a fact. Wyatt 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution has nothing to do with religion, Atheism or Richard Dawkins except in your mind. illspirit|talk 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I explained to Wyatt on his talk page, this is simply not relevant here. Also, please read up on what theories and facts are. (The talk archives are an excellent place to start, as is the article itself). Mikker (...) 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution has nothing to do with religion? you are brilliant. feel free to delete the social and religious sections Wyatt 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you misunderstood, Whoutz/Wyatt. Evolution, and science in general, makes no statement about God or the validity of religion, only that there is no evidence of God and that we can develop plausible models to explain the way the universe works and how it has proceeded to this point. However, these explanations may not be consistent with the mythologies of various religions, and this may give rise to controversy. I find the suggestions you make a bit incoherent, but I don't see how claims of teaching religion to be child abuse to be relevant here. If you have some specific suggestions with citations, please feel free to bring them up here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's all remember to maintain civility and assume good faith.  :)  Gnixon 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of theory vs. fact is addressed in the FAQ for this page.  I believe the relationship between atheism and evolution is discussed at Objections to evolution, but not all of that article's information will fit in the summary on this page.  Gnixon 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no such agenda with regard to "evolution materialism", something that doesn't even exist. Information about Dawkins should go in the Richard Dawkins article or possibly the atheism article. thx1138 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  social and religious controversies 

message: There is a need for a section about Theistic Evolution. Talk about Evolution's status in big religions such as Islam, and Christianity, and Hinduism, etc. Believe it or not, there are Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who believe in Evolution. Armyrifle 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, Theistic evolution.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, a link somewhere in the article might be nice. i kan reed 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Social and religious controversies section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a science article that is not about religious beliefs at all. That some religious organizations feel the need to have a religious position on a particular aspect of science is best discussed elsewhere, and linked from the "social and religious controversies" section. thx1138 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic Evolution 

message: Where are the examples of new species observed to come into existence? I've heard claims about medicines being invented by evolution and things, but I don't know of any where that evolution has actually been observed? This is different than seeing a chain of similar animals, because those animals are actually distant from each other even if they followed a similar path. All I've seen is beaks getting longer or shorter, but no real macro changes or new features. It would be nice to have some statements about it, but I may have just overlooked them. Wyatt 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is addressed somewhat in the FAQ.  You'll also find information in Objections to evolution since some have argued that "macroevolution" has not been observed.  Gnixon 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wyatt is right, macroevolution is the main objection in recent memory. On first thought it could be unburied from Objections and placed in its lead, which would then be replicated to Evolution. I could see some objecting to this as too specific for the lead; but to not have macroevolution in the content of the Evolution article (templates at the bottom/side don't count folks) seems to be a glaring blind spot. - RoyBoy 800 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New features have been observed, such as extra limbs and digits and such, but no new species have been observed coming into existence. The closest I could find is this: "Electric Fish in Africa Could Be Example of Evolution in Action" --Savant13 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also addressed in the FAQ.  Gnixon 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation 

message: More students using Wikipedia as authoritative source.  Experts may be discouraged from contributing by "too many cooks in the pot."
A final note, for now (from User:Mandaclair):
The main reason I have taken an interest in this article, is because University students are using Wikipedia more and more as an authoritative source -- a fact that is potentially exciting on one hand, and terrifying on the other.  As someone who interacts with biology majors on a daily basis, it would make my job (and my colleagues' jobs) much easier if we helped out in making popular resources (like Wikipedia) as accurate as possible.  Otherwise, we spend a lot of time helping students "unlearn" what they thought was true about Evolution (such as: it's all adapation, or it's all a directional process of improvement, or the notion that simply because we refer to "evolutionary theory", that therefore evolution must be some kind of tentative hypothesis that has not been "proven" one way or another... you get the picture.)  
Unfortunately, I am sure that many academics in many fields are deterred by the too-many-cooks environment at Wikipedia, and yet, they may feel compelled to help out in some way -- especially if their students use Wikipedia.  All of that being said, the Evolution article (as it stands now) does cover most of the main points, and is a decent introduction to the field and its concepts.  It could just be a lot clearer, a lot more accurate on some fundamental points, and it could cite more (and better) examples, in many places.
:There really are a lot of cooks stirring this pot, but a little word of mouth around the department could go a long way toward increasing the proportion of master chefs.  I've wondered sometimes about the idea of creating, for example, a "HarvardBiologyProf" account on Wikipedia that could be shared by a number of experts who each have limited time available.  (BTW, I'm not a Harvard bio prof.) Gnixon 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooks in the pot

message: Changes to intro by Mandaclair.  Support for them from GetAgrippa.
Heads up -- I'm going to make a few changes, but none should come as a big surprise.  Questions?  See archive above.Mandaclair 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Drastic improvement to the intro (also finally corrected the definition to include "time" or "successive generations"). I'd just leave out the last paragraph about history for later. The speciation section could really use the same hand as it is sadly lacking. GetAgrippa 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- will be tackling Speciation next.Mandaclair 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes implemented

message: Call to cut Variation and Heredity sections.  Some support for only summarizing variation and heredity within another section.  Is adaptationist perspective a POV issue?  How is evolution taught these days?  Few comments.
I kind of feel like the short "Variation" and "Heredity" sections don't belong here (mainly because the way they are written does not really address Evolution).  What do folks think about deleting these sections -- keeping in mind that there will be embedded links to the variation and heredity articles, throughout this one?Mandaclair 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with a rewrite of Variation and Heredity, but variation (mutations and recombinations)and heritable need to be explained just like superfecundity should be mentioned. It doesn't have to have a separate section. I tend to agree with your analysis of adaptation, but that is a POV issue (I can see the Gouldian influence in your education)as many authors emphasize adaptation. I do agree that exaptations should be mentioned. I am curious how evolution is taught nowadays (it has been over twenty years since I taught an introductory biology course and molecular biology and genomics has drastically altered the state of affairs).GetAgrippa 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's how evolution is (mostly) taught today: phylogeny, phylogeny, phylogeny!  Students get the fundamentals and the history of the field... but then a lot about evolutionary genomics, evo-devo, gene & genome duplications, etc.  As you might expect...Mandaclair 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation and Heredity 

message: Edits by Mandaclair to Selection and Adaptation section.  Brief debate over ecological selection.
I have now made some bold(ish) edits to the Selection and Adaptation section, a bit more consistent with the way these concepts are taught in Evolution courses for biology majors.  The previous version of this section was really a bit off... for example, the 3rd mode of selection is disruptive selection (not artificial selection), and all 3 modes could be argued to select against harmful traits and select for beneficial ones.  I also tried to improve the description of sexual selection a bit, and removed the distinction of "ecological selection" because it seemed a bit redundant with the existing description of natural selection in general.  "Ecological selection" is not a term I hear used a lot... it makes sense, sure, but I don't think it's any kind of standard category of selection... As I go through this article, though, I am generally very impressed with its quality.  My intention here is just to tidy-up, not do any drastic rewrites!  Thanks, Mandaclair 05:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have to disagree with you on ecological selection.  I'd say it has a lot of use in the last 5 years.  I'd say it's at the very least presented as a distinct type of selection - e.g., , p.127.  Guettarda 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Patrick, and in fact worked with people in the Shaw lab for many years.  In that paper, I think the term "ecological selection" is used mainly as a convenience (in context) to distinguish it from sexual selection in the argument they are making.  That's just my opinion, but I do have to say that, although the term "ecological selection" certainly makes sense, I don't hear it used often as *its own term* (most people just say natural selection and sexual selection, or talk about the 3 modes).  I do note, as you say, a lot more recent usage of this term... My only objection was the prior categorization scheme in the article, which divided selection first into "ecological" and "sexual", and then later into "directional", "stabilizing", and "artificial"... the divisions were somewhat confusing.  But if more people here think ecological selection belongs in the article in some way, I say put it back, as long as it is implemented in a way different from that previous categorization.  In my opinion "ecological selection" is not in such common use that it warrants status as a category of selection in this article... (e.g. ecological selection, in quotes, gets about 20,000 google hits, while sexual selection in quotes gets over 900,000... not really terms or categories in equal usage) Thanks, Mandaclair 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For' (obviously).  You're right, Ed.  I should have said something about it.  I certainly hope the archiving and subject headings haven't stifled discussion, but it was getting so long and covering so many topics that I couldn't follow things anymore.  Gnixon 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For so long as its employed sparingly to avoid confusing new/casual readers. But it is so obviously useful for high traffic talk pages such as this; I hope to utilize it elsewhere. - RoyBoy 800 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selection and Adaptation

message: Recent changes to the lead seem to have been well-received, but I think they've also exacerbated an existing problem:  the lead is far too long and detailed.
WP:LEAD recommends that the lead be concise and accessible, and suggests that it should be between one and four paragraphs long.  The current lead is 7 paragraphs long, and I think one could easily argue that its neither concise nor accessible to the average reader.  What's more, from glancing at the table of contents, the lead hardly seems to be an "overview" of the article.  (Granted, the article's contents are not well organized.)  Some articles about major scientific fields have addressed the issue by including only the definition in the lead, then following with an "Introduction" section.  I'm not sure that's the best solution, but we have to do something.  Any ideas?  I'll try to make a content-neutral revision sometime soon unless someone beats me to it.  Gnixon 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: A glance at the table of contents is enough to prove that this article has become very poorly organized.  I'd like to undertake a major reorganization, one that is content-neutral but better sorts things under headings and subheadings.  I think a similar change at Physics worked out well (compare before  and after ).  I'd appreciate some input regarding what the table of contents should look like and what goes where.  Thanks!  Gnixon 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would need to review User:Silence's previous plan, and the feedback questionnaire that he created for the lead, to get some ideas. (It's all in this Talk page or the archives). He also made a list of issues he thought would need to be fixed to get back the FA status. I can try to dig up all the diffs pointing to that stuff later. EdJohnston 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead survey is here.  Gnixon 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The featured article review, including Silence's extensive comments, is here.  Gnixon 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: After making extensive changes to help resolve items on his list, as well as making improvements to several related articles, Silence left this comment:
Unfortunately, I lack the biological expertise to fix some of this article's largest problems: the opaqueness of some of the more technical sections, lacking even an attempt to provide readers with context in many cases, rnders large portions of this article essentially useless as a general reference tool. What we need is some more work on clarifying concepts by people who are both very familiar with the processes and mechanisms involved, and able to explain them in sufficiently clear, engaging language. We need a Dawkins! :( -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I, given that we have strong disagreement on many issues pertaining to these articles, cannot be the only two who are involved.  I would "hold your horses" until other editors weigh in with their opinions.  You have a tendency to go "ready, fire, fire, fire, aim."  Slow down.  Orangemarlin 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas your tendency is "revert, revert, then maybe read."  ;-)  Just trying to be bold until there seem to be objections.  I haven't yet changed anything about the article.  I think the area where we disagree is pretty well-defined, so we can probably cooperate on other things.  It's a shame that there haven't been many editors around here lately.  Gnixon 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, what happened to the lead?  It is way too long.  I think it grew by creeping.  Orangemarlin 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed.  See my comments above.  Gnixon 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We're trying.  Come back and help, this article needs you too.  Orangemarlin 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: I'm not seriously proposing a move, but can anyone see how many of the problems we have here would be solved by changing the article name to "Evolutionary biology"?  Many of the tensions on this page are due to confusion over whether we're writing about
#Evolutionary biology, a field of study like Physics.
#Theory of Evolution, as in, the Modern Synthesis, a theory like the Theory of General Relativity
#Evolutionary processes, as in the observable aspects
#Evolution by natural selection, meaning the concept of it, as in Darwin's revolutionary idea that changed science and society, like Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.
How did the English language come up so short here?  How do other encyclopedias handle the problem?  Gnixon 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep the name Evolution. The idea of changing the name comes up promptly every six weeks, and  is always rejected. The name has been this way since 2001. EdJohnston 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I said I wasn't proposing a move!  :-)  On the other hand, I think it's worth discussing which definition we're writing about, or which parts of the article address each meaning.  I also think we have almost enough material to make a separate "Theory of Evolution" article, and I wish we had enough to make "Evolutionary biology" (as in the branch distinguished from molecular bio).  Gnixon 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics 

message: As a biologist, I have issue with the use of word 'design' in the following sentence in the 'Academic Disciplines' section: 
The capability of evolution through selection to produce designs optimized for a particular environment has greatly interested mathematicians, scientists and engineers.
Could 'design' be replaced with 'biological processes and networks' or something similar?  Evolution doesn't generate function through 'design' but with whatever paradigm works.
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.191.134 (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edit 

message: I've done a cleanup on Fisherian runaway and trimmed it somewhat.  Can someone do a sanity check and make sure I haven't removed anything important?  Also, it would be good if someone could add some references to it. (I'm posting here because Fisherian runaway is pretty low traffic.) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fisherian runaway]] 

message: bnme:this is myvirgn attmpt at a internet talk site. I can't type and I have to soetimes hit the keys twice to get em to work.  If I a using someones post, please let me k(twice)now.  With these thumbs I save monkeys. There had to be some miracle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnmeee (talk • contribs) 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BNME:Monkeys 

message: I most recently came across this in Ben Bova's FAINT ECHOES, DISTANT STARS: THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF FINDING LIFE BEYOND EARTH, HarperCollins, 2004, p 247.  We vaguely think of evolution as a ladder with intelligence at the top.  And that's just not the case.  Evolution is bushy and goes in all kinds of different directions.  Other useful adaptations include sharp eyes, strong legs, a keen nose, increased wingspan, a hunting strategy of sitting and waiting and thus conserving energy, having lots of offstring, long tail feathers to attract mates, thick wooly coats for mammals in cold climates, and etc, etc.
Bova also cites Stephen Jay Gould, who takes this same general view.  And here’s a website giving the transcript of a Nov. ’96 interview between Stephen and political consultant/commentator David Gergen  .  Now, Stephen doesn’t actually use the word ‘bushy’ here, which I have heard attributed to him in other contexts.  But it’s a very, very good description of what he is talking about.
I agree with Mandaclair that the Huxley graphic is great for showing a previous view of evolution and it's kind of quaint in its own way, but it is definitely not the modern view!  And if you look closely at the captions, they say "Gibbon, Orang, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Man.”  Yes, these five are the currently living species of great apes (six if you wish to count the bonobo chimp as a separate species).  But we are cousins!
But this same idea, slightly more sophisticated, is still in wide currency.  As a young boy (I'm now 44), I remember seeing a long line of about twenty hominids, as if the whole thing is so neat and orderly.  It simply is not.  In fact, if we list the usual cast: Ramapithecus, Sivapithecus, Oriopithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien neaderthalis, all those cool cats!  Well, most of these guys are our cousins, not our ancestors.  (The immediate ancestor of us modern humans is Homo erectus, who is also the immediate ancestor of the neanderthals.  So please note that we and the neanderthals are cousins.)  
Another thing I might ask in the article is a longer, fuller explanations of L-amino acids in proteins.   I take it this is the left-hand amino acids vs. the right-hand amino acids.  This is a topic I find fascinating but don't know too much about.  And as far as the writing style itself, sometimes a piece of wrting can include a technical description, and then a resaying of the same thing in briefer everyday language.  I don't suggest this as anything mechanical and required, but rather as one more feathered arrow in your writer's quiver.  
I think one of our main articles on a subject, like evolution, should be long (as long as it stays good!).  One of the advantages of the Internet over a set of Encyclopedia Britannicas sitting on a shelf is that bandwidth is so much cheaper than printing!  Yeah, I’ll kind of jump in the middle here.  I think length in and of itself is not such a bad thing.  FriendlyRiverOtter 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  If you see any possible improvements to the article, please make them!  (If they're big changes, probably mention them on this page.)  Gnixon 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution as bushy, and intelligence as only one adaptation 

message: This talk page tends to fill up quickly.  Can we agree on a policy for archiving old discussions?  I would suggest the following:
* Keep any discussion with a comment less than 2 weeks old.  Regularly move older ones to the archives.
* For very long but ongoing discussions, use the hat/hab tags to hide older comments.  Use the reason= parameter to explain.  For example,  produces
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
* When someone raises a controversial subject that is addressed in the FAQ, leave the original post, but immediately use hat/hab on the inevitable flamewar that follows.  For example,
:Evolution is unproven!  It's a theory, not a fact!  User:GenesisTellsAll
:You're an idiot.  You don't even know what those words mean.  Evolution is true, no matter what a bunch of stupid religious people say.  User:DarwinFishEatsYou
::Screw you!  Evolutionists are just atheists trying to promote their anti-faith as science.  They ignore clear evidence for design.  User:GenesisTellsAll
:::Die in a fire!  To refute you, I'm going to write ten pages of text proving my point, and add ten more pages of quotes from my favorite people who agree with me.  User:DarwinFishEatsYou
::::So am I.  Ready, set, go! GenesisTellsAll
...
What do you guys think?  Gnixon 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent suggestion Gnixon. The warning banners and FAQ do little to stop POV pushing and vandals, so addressing it in the Talk but hiding it seems reasonable. It is difficult enough to get consensus on the topic from evolution enthusiast without wasting time addressing side issues not related to the topic. I have to admit I was initially naive to the depths of concern over creationist and ID vandalisms-I thought the editors paranoid, but was I wrong. Fill spends quite a bit of time refuting such claims from creationist and ID proponents. I am shocked as some seems less than honest (not all I should amend)which does little for their cause. GetAgrippa 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Credit where due:  the hat/hab archives were EdJohnston's idea.  We could all try harder to keep our comments tightly focused and avoid starting off-topic discussions.  Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd propose regular archiving in a simple manner, not topic-by-topic, which is too labor-intensive to be done regularly by a human, and prone to error. It probably requires a bot to do topic-by-topic archiving without tons of work, and the available bots leave something to be desired. The hat/hab scheme for boxing up topics seems fine for questions answered in the FAQ. In general I'd suggest that this Talk page is too large when it gets over 120 kb and that the archiver should leave the most recent 80kb in place. EdJohnston 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah.  I didn't mean that each topic should be archived separately.  I imagined someone glancing at the page and saying, "none of the topics above here have comments within the last two weeks, so they all get archived."  As for keeping the page to 80-120 kB, I think it's better to decide a reasonable time since last comment and cut on that instead.  (Of course, keeping the page small puts an upper limit on that time.)  This page fills up so fast that cutting on size will often remove ongoing discussions.  Editors shouldn't miss the chance to comment on recent topics just because they haven't logged onto Wikipedia in the last 3 or 4 days.  Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By request, here's my comment.  The problem with "leaving the original comment" is that you have to apply the strategy with consistency.  For example, even after this strategy of "leaving the original comment" was apparently agreed upon (by consensus of two), there was a comment here about "Thesitic Evolution" or something like that, where someone mentioned that other religions allow for evolution, and another about how evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermo.  Both of those comments were archived in their entirety, whereas the initial creationist POV comments regarding "the atheist agenda" and "scientific controversy" and "where do new species come from?" seem to have been left, with all rebuttal archived.  I have modified the archival to remove POV from the formatting.  Many people do not click through to read the archive, so my suggestion is one of the following:  EITHER you archive the WHOLE THING with a short description of what the archive is about (as Gnixon does with most of the scientific content), OR you leave the original comment/posting, no matter what POV it comes from.  Thanks, TxMCJ 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment.  The justification for leaving the first comment is that it might offend people if their original posts are immediately hidden.  The point of hat-habbing FAQ stuff, after all, was to discourage others from engaging in debate on issues in the FAQ---it's the responses that are problematic, not the original post.  As for archival of other things and issues of fairness, the two topics you mentioned were not immediately archived like a FAQ topic would have been---instead, I or someone else archived them later just to save space because the discussions seemed to be over.  I didn't bother leaving the first comments because I didn't think hiding them would offend the original posters.  I certainly didn't intend to bias this page.  Bottom line:  I'm happy to try immediately hiding FAQ-covered posts, but if they start flipping out about it, I suggest we reconsider.  Gnixon 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Archiving by topic is really useful, but also tons of work to maintain.  I suspect people switched to the simpler scheme out of laziness.  Keep in mind that this talk page generates about an article's length of comments every couple weeks.  See also the discussion about an "Evolution Debates" archive and its deletion as a POV fork.  Gnixon 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad.  It was nice to refer people to old arguments.  If they didn't read them, we could beat them up mercilessly.  It made my days so much happier.  Orangemarlin 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful if someone created such a table at the top of the page with links to discussions in the archives.  Gnixon 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With User:EdJohnston's help, I think I've found the pages OM refers to.  They're linked to in the 2005 archives.  Gnixon 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: I must have missed when it happened, but this new archiving methodology isn't very useful.  I remember there used to be, at the top of the discussion page, a great reference source that had archives of discussions by topic.  For example, the "Evolution is only a theory" topic, which happens over and over again, had it's own link.  One could go and read it, maybe realize "oh someone's said that, and it's been set aside."  Now I can't find all that stuff.  Anyways, all IMHO.  Orangemarlin 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving by topic is really useful, but also tons of work to maintain.  I suspect people switched to the simpler scheme out of laziness.  Keep in mind that this talk page generates about an article's length of comments every couple weeks.  See also the discussion about an "Evolution Debates" archive and its deletion as a POV fork.  Gnixon 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad.  It was nice to refer people to old arguments.  If they didn't read them, we could beat them up mercilessly.  It made my days so much happier.  Orangemarlin 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful if someone created such a table at the top of the page with links to discussions in the archives.  Gnixon 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With User:EdJohnston's help, I think I've found the pages OM refers to.  They're linked to in the 2005 archives.  Gnixon 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Topical archiving

message: To save us effort, I've set up User:MiszaBot to automatically archive conversations older than 2 weeks.  Hopefully, I got all the settings right.  If it causes problems, please let me know and I'll clean things up.  If anyone doesn't like this idea, please say so.  Or, if you like the bot but not the settings, certainly feel free to change them yourself---it's pretty easy.  Cheers, Gnixon 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot archiving

message: The Social and religious controversy section is probably the most neglected one in the article, but it is one of the most important for many of the new posters on this discussion page.  The section has long had "citation needed" tags.  It discusses both objections to evolution and controversial social theories derived from it, but the two topics are not well-separated.  The paragraphs seem to have each been developed independently and don't transition well.  Can we try to improve things?  Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the page.  Gnixon 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy (2) 

message: The featured article review in January resulted in delisting, but also produced a number of well-received recommendations from User:Silence and others.  Not all of them have been carried out.  I've copied Silence's list of recommendations in the hidden archive below.  Please comment either within the archive or below it.  Gnixon 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also consider what the point is in having "Evidence of evolution."  Is there a better title, like maybe "Examples of evolution"?  Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're still on the short side of things here.  There are only about 2 paragraphs on history.  The section appears long because it has a subsection "Academic disciplines".  Surely that would work better as "Current research".  Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Misunderstandings was cut.  It spawned a Misunderstandings subarticle and the "Objections to Evolution" subarticle, which are mentioned in the Social controversy section.  Others have independently argued that a Misunderstandings section would be useful, but still others have expressed concerns that it's too vulnerable to POV.  I wonder if we could reintroduce "Misunderstandings," but excercising *extreme* care to avoid anything about creationism?  Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Implemented.  This might make an NPOV "Misunderstandings" section more feasible.  Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: -Silence 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For technical items where it's absolutely clear they've been resolved, I suggest striking through the items.  Gnixon 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnixon, thanks for digging up this useful info. I struck out Silence's action item about external links, since they were reduced to nine back on 9 February. If I see more things I can fix I'll edit the boxed copy of his list you provided above. EdJohnston 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also struck out some items that were completed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: AOL, I'd like to strike out the infant issue. I agree with the idea of not over explaining concepts in article, but I would emphasize that a "phenotype" is not common knowledge. - RoyBoy 800 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine to strike it out if it's no longer a problem, but the complaint was justified:  "e.g., what makes you different from your neighbor" is far too casual language for an encyclopedia.  Gnixon 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: I think it would be really great if someone created a "Theory of evolution" article using the information already in this article.  The idea would be to discuss the ins and outs of the modern synthesis and current research in greater detail without bogging down the Evolution article.  For example, the lead we currently have, which is far too detailed for the average reader of this article, would work very nicely in "Theory of evolution."  It would also be a great place to discuss issues like horizontal gene transfer, population bottlenecking, etc., which frankly aren't too interesting to the average reader.  There's more than enough material here to make a good start on what could be a very interesting new addition to Wikipedia.  Just like "Misunderstandings" spawned its own article, I think the time has come for "Theory of evolution" or "Evolutionary theory."  Gnixon 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO.  There is already an easy to read article, Introduction to evolution.  And second there is no "theory" of Evolution.  It is a fact of Evolution.  Orangemarlin 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does a less technical article negate the usefulness of a more technical article???  Regarding theory vs. fact, please see the FAQ.  Gnixon 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For comparison, see Quantum mechanics.  Although there is also Introduction to quantum mechanics, the main article manages to stay nicely general, with a good balance between the theory, its applications, its history, its relationship to other fields, and its philosophical consequences.  You don't see that article going on about details of, say, the WKB approximation (think HGT), and major subtopics like quantum field theory are discussed briefly and have main articles (think genetics). Gnixon 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding theory vs fact, please see Evolution as theory and fact.  Also see Theory of Evolution].  "Theory" of evolution is a canard to throw off the casual reader that somehow Evolution is just some random thought that entered Darwin's brain.Orangemarlin 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a break.  I'm talking about creating a new article that can discuss the theory in more detail, which I think would be useful.  Is Theory of relativity a canard to throw off the casual reader about its truth?  I'm starting to feel my temperature rising.  Gnixon 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the differences with Quantum mechanics.  There had been numerous conversations about simplifying this article.  Those conversations (cough cough) were much easier to find a while ago, until a certain someone (cough cough) decided to reformat this discussion without consensus (cough cough).  OK, I'm being passive aggressive and getting off point.  Evolution is complicated, and to simplify it demeans the subject.  We try to spin off forks to more easily explain certain complications.  But my biggest criticism of what you write is your assumption that people are either too stupid or too lazy to read this type of article.  Once again, if they want the real FACT of Evolution read this article.  If they want the simplistic form, then go to the easier article.  As a suggestion, why don't you suggest some changes to this article to clean up language.  But do it on this page, don't mess with the main article.  Maybe we can compromise between too complex and too basic.  Orangemarlin 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've implied before that I somehow messed up the archives, which I've explained before is not the case.  If you're objecting to the hat/habbing, why don't we discuss it in the topic above created explicitly for that purpose, where you've so far left no comment.  Gnixon 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop trying to provoke a theory vs. fact debate.  We usually hide those discussions on this page and refer people to the FAQ.  Gnixon 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're implying that the true motive of my suggestion is to allow us to dumb down this article to the level of Introduction to evolution.  That's not the case.  This isn't black or white.  There can be a general article, a simpler one, and a more complicated, technical one.  I think the latter would be very useful, and I'm not sure what your problem is with it.  Gnixon 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I most certainly will "mess with the main article" if I think I can make an improvement consistent with consensus established here.  WP:BB and WP:OWN are well-established policy, and good policy, to boot.  I'm not saying I won't first discuss changes that might be controversial, but I really hate the idea of discouraging editors from making any changes that aren't first discussed.  Gnixon 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, I read the FAQ long ago, and just now.  What's your point?  Orangemarlin 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is both a theory and a fact.  See /FAQ#Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?.  I would have thought you'd be familiar with that point.  Gnixon 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to ignore the callous violations of WP:CIVIL, and basically hope that you come to your senses, and try to understand what I wrote.  Orangemarlin 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You know what, I actually give up.  You win.  You own all of these articles, because frankly, it's not worth the time and energy having an intelligent discussion with you, because you are absolutely certain of your being right on every issue.  There are many more editors out there who will stand up to you, but maybe they've given up.  I've never seen an editor of your intelligence level who believes in absolutes as much as you do.  Go ahead and edit away, make them into Christian POV articles, if that's your wish.  I'm sure you'll just archive this so you can hide what one editor feels about your editing.  I'm done with you and standing up to your "I'm right and the rest of you are wrong" attitude.  Enjoy buddy.  01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paranoia  Gnixon 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with the idea of moving things like that to main articles.  (For the record, I wasn't proposing the other article only in order to move stuff from here.  I really think it would be helpful to have a more technical article in one place, even if this one didn't change.)  Gnixon 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a great idea to move the topical material listed above to articles on those topics, however I don't like the idea of having multiple tiers of articles on the same topics.  Two is plenty, possibly too many, we should not have three. My two cents...  --TeaDrinker 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need Gene flow, and a brief mention of epigenetics. The others, well, the last two might be useful in explaining other things, but not more than a sentence each.  Adam Cuerden talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that anything that is an important component of the theory of evolution ought to be mentioned here, with a link.  But I see no reason why we canot have three tiers of articles: at the top, an article on evolution as fact and as theory that provides a general overview; then an article on the theory of evolution that goes into details about models for evolution, how they have changed, points of contention (comparable articles at this "level" would be evidence for evolution as well as articles on the evolution of actual species e.g. human evolution); then linked articles on natural selection, genetic drift, and other, more technical or contentions elements at play in current models/theorizing of evolution. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a reasonable suggestion, but Modern Synthesis, at least in its current incarnation, seems to be specifically about the historical merging of Darwin and Mendel.  I was thinking of something more general that, as Slrubenstein described above, would discuss various models and aspects of the modern theory.  Gnixon 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin-off 

message: Back to the issue.  What do people think of creating a more technical "Theory of Evolution"?  (I'm a little disappointed that discussion on this article seems to have died down over the last couple weeks.  Maybe it's the level of drama?  I hope we can return to active, productive discussion---please let me know if I can somehow improve my role in it.)  Gnixon 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the idea of moving things like that to main articles.  (For the record, I wasn't proposing the other article only in order to move stuff from here.  I really think it would be helpful to have a more technical article in one place, even if this one didn't change.)  Gnixon 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a great idea to move the topical material listed above to articles on those topics, however I don't like the idea of having multiple tiers of articles on the same topics.  Two is plenty, possibly too many, we should not have three. My two cents...  --TeaDrinker 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need Gene flow, and a brief mention of epigenetics. The others, well, the last two might be useful in explaining other things, but not more than a sentence each.  Adam Cuerden talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that anything that is an important component of the theory of evolution ought to be mentioned here, with a link.  But I see no reason why we canot have three tiers of articles: at the top, an article on evolution as fact and as theory that provides a general overview; then an article on the theory of evolution that goes into details about models for evolution, how they have changed, points of contention (comparable articles at this "level" would be evidence for evolution as well as articles on the evolution of actual species e.g. human evolution); then linked articles on natural selection, genetic drift, and other, more technical or contentions elements at play in current models/theorizing of evolution. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a reasonable suggestion, but Modern Synthesis, at least in its current incarnation, seems to be specifically about the historical merging of Darwin and Mendel.  I was thinking of something more general that, as Slrubenstein described above, would discuss various models and aspects of the modern theory.  Gnixon 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin-off section 2

message: Are we ever going to have a war about this? The lead now states common descent quite baldly as tracing down to a single ancestor. Are we resolved to ignore confusion on this subject, or should we somehow amend the sentence to clarify? Will I ever shut up about this? Graft 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your problem is with the fact that we say "common ancestor" rather than "common ancestor or ancestral gene pool" (which will just confuse most readers, since we haven't yet said what a gene pool is), dictionary.com attests to the fact that a "common ancestor", in this context, need not be a singular, specific individual organism; it defines a "common ancestor" as "the most recent ancestral form or species from which two different species evolved". The universal common ancestor can thus be a grouping of organisms, at least as far as I can tell. That's the very reason that terms like last universal ancestor are so often used. -Silence 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoi? Non, as far as I've read. Maybe a population or species, as is certainly the case with "common ancestors" for sexually reproducing creatures, but certainly not a grouping of disparate organisms that are genetically distinct. Common descent should mean a single root to the tree of life. Graft 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this isn't Baraminology. There is a single root, as far as can be told: it's just obscured horrendously by extreme HGT at an early phase of divergence. Unless you're claiming that the same genetic code could independently evolve repeatedly... Adam Cuerden talk 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, I'm not claiming that, and really I don't know the field incredibly well. But see the Doolittle & Bapteste paper I linked to above; the position you cite above is one of three that Doolittle highlights, and it's certainly under attack. Eugene Koonin gave a talk on my floor a month or two ago on his theories of origins, and he definitely does NOT claim a single organism at the root. (I won't be able to do his scenarios justice, but you can probably look 'em up.) Graft 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To be clear, I'm of course not claiming that there's multiple roots for, say, mammals, or animals, or probably even eukaryotes. But going beyond that it's not clear... Graft 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a really fascinating topic to me... my most current understanding of "origins" is that, due to the (mainly) universal genetic code and the strict use of L-amino acids, that all life on earth *now* is likely to be descended from one ancestral lineage.  However, the RNA world hypothesis and other early-earth ideas definitely allow for other (i.e. multiple) origins of life on Earth at that time... but I'm fairly sure that all *extant* lineages of life are believed to be traceable to an ancestral form, largely based on phylogenetic evidence.  Do you know Carl Woese's paper on the Darwinian Threshold?  I will try to find a link to it... I always have my students read that paper, near the end of my course. TxMCJ 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common descent 

message: ::::Doctors of theology should also please self-identify.  Those who do not fit within those two categories will please avoid sullying this article with their "contributions." Gnixon 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two questions: 1.) which category do you fall into, Gnixon?  and 2.) WHAT POSSIBLE ROLE could a doctor of Theology have in editing an article about a science that s/he has no formal training in?  There are other articles for them.  I'm not going to bumble over to the Theology pages and start mucking around over there, because I haven't studied that field in much depth. TxMCJ 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if my sarcasm was not evident.  Also apologies if it was impolite, but I was only trying to make a point.  (Follow the wikilink.)  My ability to contribute to this article or my lack thereof may be judged by the quality of my past contributions.  I recommend applying the same standard to all editors.  Gnixon 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Here", "here". I'd suggest that this philosophy should be extended to all walks of life. Screw credentials. To quote Batman, "It's what you do that defines you." Graft | talk 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be most practical to start with just Wikipedia.  ;)  Gnixon 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Graft and RolandDeschain are both grads or new PhD's in evolutionary biology. Slrubenstein is an anthropologist. I believe there are several others who float about???? Lots of very knowledgeable scientist in varying biological fields. I'm old school B.S., M.S., and then Ph.D. I guess cardiovascular biology was my main endeavor, but I bounced around a little too (my Ph.D. was in developmental biology and why I have an avid interest in EvoDevo). I have always had an interest in evolutionary biology and still follow some journals and read books. I think it is a very exciting time to be a scientist (I miss research in particular). I digress. Anyways give it a few days and more evolutionary biologist should speak up. GetAgrippa 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA, I know your intentions are good, but I object to any attempt to limit editing to a club of editors willing to self-identify as biologists.  I understand that's an exaggeration of your intent, but it's headed in that direction, and I don't think it's a good idea.  Gnixon 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that the editor who made the most well-received edit to this article in recent history describes himself extensively on his user page, but makes no mention of his professional credentials.  He has previously indicated that he is unqualified (on the subject matter) to perform a major overhaul of this article; nevertheless, he has arguably contributed as much to the quality of this article as any other editor.  Gnixon 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but for a Master plan it would be nice to have experts in the field if available. I also believe that non-experts have written excellent articles (with assistance) and made significant contributions. I only point out that I am no expert in evolutionary biology (as some would guess), but I am knowlegeable. Why not use experts as a valuable resource? Wikipedia is anyone can edit (which does reflexively make me cringe I have to admit). I would not discourage editors from participating, least I would shut my big yap (which seems unlikely). GetAgrippa 00:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what "self-identifying" as an evolutionary biologist means.  Some like myself are identified *by others* to be evolutionary biologists, in that we are hired to teach the subject at top universities, our papers get accepted to top evolutionary journals, and we get invited to NSF-funded symposia on teaching evolution.  That's not really "self-identifying", it is recognition and acceptance by your scientific peers.  Also, not to be too critical, but the article that many of you are so proud of working on "despite your lack of credentials", had (and still has) a number of factual inaccuracies and clumsy explanations, not to mention a universally recognized lack of organization and flow.  So: good work, but don't pat yourselves on the back too much.  The article needs a ton of work, and the best people for that job are people who work in the field.  Grad students included. TxMCJ 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "self-identifying," I mean, for example, you explaining that the Wikipedia user TxMCJ is the same as a real-life biology postdoc and lecturer.  The dangers of relying on such self-identifications as qualifications for editing an article or directing the editing thereof were illustrated by the Essjay controversy.  My objections in principle to that approach were stated above.  Gnixon 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, let me get this straight:  you're basically saying that just because there was one pathetic slob out there who faked credentials and used them in content disputes, that the solution therefore is to mistrust and doubt anyone and everyone who ever comes through here offering their services as a knowledgeable expert in their field?  Brilliant strategy, man -- simply brilliant. Bravo!  But here's a suggestion: when you doubt someone's credentials, why don't you save you (and them) a lot of hassle by FIRST researching whether their contributions are sound.  Think a contributor doesn't know what they're talking about?  Well, fine -- but go look it up elsewhere and check, before you erect your impassable wall of personal skepticism and doubt.  Go to the primary literature, and compare it with what editors write here.  Wikipedia charlatans ought to be easy to see through, but (Lo!) if you find that you CAN'T see through charlatans, then you've proven to yourself that you aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to be editing the article. TxMCJ 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read my post before you "responded" to it?  The straw men are out in force.  Gnixon 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's out "in force", is a lot of micromanaging/bickering/wikibabble that is not getting this article anywhere.  I will be *thrilled* (if not stunned) to see your next posting, to this page or the article, about the topic of the article itself.  Go ahead and do some actual writing about Evolutionary Science.  Go ahead: contribute in a meaningful way that enhances the article.  And then I will take you up on your offer above where you say "my ability to contribute to this article or my lack thereof may be judged by the quality of my past contributions."  Unless, of course, you really want me to go after your past contributions.  Just let me know. TxMCJ 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you double-dog dare me?  Feel free to "go after" my past contributions.  I think you're probably not qualified to do so, but that's just an educated guess on my part.  Reciprocally, I'll be happy to sum up my opinion of your contributions in a few words, but I'm not sure if this whole exercise would really do much to improve the article.  On a more substantive note, I think you're implying a mistaken equivalence between the title of this article and the details of the current theory of evolutionary biology.  Gnixon 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at your past contributions, and really don't have much motivation to dissect them.  They are largely concentrated in a section of the article that might belong elsewhere, but that's neither "here nor there".  I get into phases where I like to talk about the Ev/Cre debate, but man oh man, if anything ever gets tiresome to me, it's that.  But for the record: having taught with Gould for 3 years (which I say as a statement of fact and not of elitism) I can assure you that I am well-versed in every aspect of that "debate" (or non-debate, rather), including the history of that thought, the philosophy, the logic flaws, the history of legal cases involving public schools, and all of that.  I used to give 2 whole lectures on that for my undergraduates, but have since stopped doing that, since these days almost everyone taking biology classes in college is "over" the "debate". TxMCJ 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Master plan

message: I would like to see the following quote (or, the information in it) included in this article. It simply and elegantly explains why evolution does not violate the 2nd law. --Thorwald 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "second law of thermodynamics" argument is not an accepted scientific view, nor an overwhelmingly noteworthy creationist argument, so it is not relevant enough to mention in Evolution; consequently, neither are counter-arguments against it. However, this information would be exceedingly welcome in the daughter article Objections to evolution, which has an entire section devoted to this objection. -Silence 03:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Silence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second law of thermodynamics ''vs.'' creationists 

message: I posted what I view to be an important statement here, that was subsequently deleted.  I am not going to contest the censorship, because I agree that this kind of thing really brings Wikipedia down to a very poor level, but instead of reposting here I am moving the content and argument  to my Talk page, for the record.  Please have a look if you are remotely interested.  Thanks, TxMCJ 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, the discussion was between TxMCJ and I, and it was removed by a third editor.  Gnixon 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage anyone else interested in this topic to peruse the talk pages of Orangemarlin, Gnixon, Enormousdude, and the administrator FeloniousMonk, to see how Gnixon's (often POV-driven) editing without expertise has been maddening to editors of the Physics and Relativity articles as well.  Not trying to witch-hunt, just trying to shed light on a pattern.  TxMCJ 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I'll encourage everyone to read through what TxMCJ has deleted from her user talk page.  You might also be interested in looking over other editors' interactions with Enormousdude and FeloniousMonk.  TxMCJ, if this stalking and general offensiveness continues, I will seek assistance from an administrator.  Gnixon 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please read anything you'd like that I house-cleaned from my talk page during the first 2 days I had one, before I was schooled in the "wiki way" that I should archive instead of delete.  I don't mind, since I have nothing to hide.  And... stalking?  Gnixon, YOU were the one who has, on several occasions, taken it upon yourself to Google who I am and post your little public reports here of my hobbies, experience, and incorrectly estimated credentials without asking permission.  YOU have been the stalker -- I have only investigated your interactions on other articles to see if you've been as difficult to deal with elsewhere, as here.  Your little Google-quest of me and who I am is the reason many people decide to be anonymous, but I am not going to let it faze me.  I am sorry that you are not comfortable enough with yourself to be non-anonymous as I have chosen to be, but any accusations of "stalking" on your part are simply ridiculous and hypocritical, given the prior investigation you've clearly done on me AND POSTED TO THIS PAGE.  I won't continue this thread, but at this point I believe it's wrong to censor it . TxMCJ 08:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As can be seen from the history of  and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Gnixon's edits to special relativity were in line with the consensus of pretty much all editors working on that article other than User:Enormousdude. Claiming that his edits are "maddening to the editors of the Physics and Relativity articles" is greatly distorting the situation. By all means check the edit histories and talk pages involved to verify this for yourselves. --Christopher Thomas 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Believe it or not I am somewhat agreed on that (even though I was the second user to voice this particular complaint)... so I won't continue this thread any further.  But for important reasons I've tried to explain, I unfortunately did feel that it was appropriate (necessary) use of the article talk page, as the issues really go beyond personal disputes. I agree it is awful use of this page, but there have been plenty of other inappropriate things posted here recently, and those comments have not been censored.  For that reason I think it is wrong to single this comment and thread out for censorship. I am finished with this now if everyone else is, but if it is censored again I will simply repost it, and be happy to endure whatever "administrator assistance" is sought, and provide my own description of stalking and "general offensiveness" that has been directed at me, not to mention an inquiry into why this particular complaint should be censored from the article talk page while others weren't.  Thanks, TxMCJ 08:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Apologies In Advance 

message: I suggest creating a seperate page on "Evolutionary theory", which, when searched, leads to the article on Evolution. The article would focus more on the mechanisms of evolution, allowing this article to focus on the factual side of evolution. Any comments, reactions?
--THobern 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already exists. Modern evolutionary synthesis. -Silence 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a bad idea. Though we could also make it a dab page linking to Evolution, Modern evolutionary synthesis, and even past evolutionary theories, like Lamarckism. -Silence 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was my orginal problem with the linking. I suggest a page covering the different schools of Evolutionary thought, historical and modern. It can link, of course, to the main articles. Thanks
--THobern 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no other modern ones, except for religious attempts to "create" science where none exists.  Orangemarlin 16:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that all is hunky-dory between advocates of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?  Neither believes that they are taking a religious position, as I understand it. Mdotley 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mdotley, that's not what I was referring to.  When someone throws in "theory", I know what they mean, and it wasn't what you described.  BTW, it may not be hunky-dory (haven't heard that in years), but one side is NOT claiming that G_d is on their side.  :)  Orangemarlin 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You brought religion into it, Marlin. Anyway, I'm with Mdotley on this one. A history of evolutionary theory would be more appropriate than linking "evolutionary theory" to Evolution (I recently changed this to link to Modern evolutionary synthesis, but that's not quite right).--THobern 05:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I mean along the lines of Genetic drift, Phenotypic plasticity, Gene-centered views of evolution as opposed to earlier Lamarckian models. The article would focus more on the mechanisms of evolution, allowing this article to focus on the factual, as opposed to the theoretical, side of evolution.--THobern 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a mistake to try to separate the description of what has happened in the history of life and the explanations for why this has happened. You need to explain one to understand the other, so I don't think separating the two would make this any clearer to the reader. TimVickers 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see where you're comming from, and I have to agree. Perhaps seperate articles on both. One for evolutionary theory, the other for the history of evolution. Thanks for the feedback, --THobern 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page