Talk:Evolution/Archive 20

message: ...WHY doesn't Evolution have it? It's vandalised all the time. Adam Cuerden talk 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has a large team of dedicated editors who carefully watch it and protect it from any significant corrosion. And because, despite being an FA, it needs a lot of improvement, and an occasional anonymous editor who makes a small improvement is worth it for the minor effort of reverting the anonymous vandalisms. And because, being such a prominent article, ideally it should showcase the best of Wikipedia, and one of those best aspects is its editability by anyone, so semi-protection should be a temporary measure if it is used at all here. (And, personally, because I just find some of the vandalism amusing in its trying-to-be-serious absurdity.) -Silence 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Silence.  For anybody who actually wants to write a book about all cultural and personal misconceptions about the fact of evolution and the modern synthesis, just look at all the vandalism on this page.--Roland Deschain 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Silence is perfectly correct. Also, this issue has been discussed several times before and the overwhelming consensus was that protection was not needed (see the talk archives). Mikker (...) 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree also. There is always room for improvement, and new finds and better examples. Vandals hit everywhere, which is surprising. I think the greatest asset of Wikipedia is that it can be more current than traditional encyclopedias, and it not just a few authors ideas and effort. GetAgrippa 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection

message: The uniqueness of an enterprise that succeeds by constantly trying to prove itself wrong was brought to my attention by this post at slashdot that says "science was invented once, based on the legacy from Greece, and has since spread everywhere. That is the ONLY science - anything else may be knowledge, or technology, but it isn't science, because it's not been done according to scientific methods, where we purposefully try to *invalidate* ideas, instead of validating them. This is a very unnatural way of thinking, and has turned out to be a very practical one." I imagine many of the people who post here with evidence against evolution don't quite grasp that their evidence is from the process of science. A cherry picked factoid out of context derived from science (which is the ongoing process of investigation into trying to disprove any and every theory in science). Science is in fact an elaborate unique institution that consists of continually making progress by continually trying to disprove itself. As opposed to every other world-view institution ever created which continually try to obstruct counter evidences. WAS 4.250 14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science is unique

message: I want to add an external link to data that shows the percentage of the population that believes in evolution in various countries. I found this data to be very interesting. The link is: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=286
by JamieA
:This article is not about popular beliefs. The link should go in an article where popular belief is relevant. This article links to some other wikipedia articles like that. WAS 4.250 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the majority of Americans doubt the evolution of man in particular. Ironically since WWII America has won over half of all nobel prizes in physiology, medicine, physics, and chemistry. America is still considered the world's leader in science, and yet evolution is met with doubt by 1/3 and the evolution of man is doubted by 1/2. The influence of religion has its greatest impact in doubting the origin of man. Although educated people fair better in evolution belief, it is not that clear cut. Weird.GetAgrippa 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that many of the Nobel Prize Winners in medicine, physiology, physics or chemistry doubt the facts of evolution.John D. Croft 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Creation-evolution controversy would be more appropriate for it. Adam Cuerden talk 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: Geomor's removbed large sections, many of them, in my opinion, appropriately. However, is there anything that should be saved/spun off in what was removed? Adam Cuerden talk 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [Horizontal gene transfer]], the process in which an organism transfers genetic material (i.e. DNA) to another cell that is not its offspring, allows for large sudden evolutionary leaps in a species by incorporating beneficial genes evolved in another species. The Endosymbiotic theory explains the origin of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells, as the incorporation of an ancient prokaryotic cell into ancient eukaryotic cell. Heneta, a protist, is an extant organism that is undergoing endosymbiotic evolution.
====Evidence from studies of complex iteration====
Completely deleted.  Since it's just a series of (copyrighted?) quotations, this may be best. 
====Ancestry of organisms====
The following is cut:
"One example of this misconception is the erroneous belief humans will evolve more fingers in the future on account of their increased use of machines such as computers. In reality, this would only occur if more fingers offered a significantly higher rate of reproductive success than those not having them, which seems very unlikely at the current time."
I agree with this cut: It's hardly a common belief, and it's rambly and badly written.
====Self-orginisation and entropy====
Cut completely. I disagree with this cut: It's probably in the top three creationist arguements - but I must admit to being worried about the lengthy quote (copyright infringement?).
In short, I think that some of his cuts, which were reverted, were quite rightly done, and think we should cut them again. Is there agreement on this? Adam Cuerden talk 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is consensus on keeping what was deleted as evidenced by its long standing presence in the article. You are of couse free to present arguments for this absurd deletion attempt, but the arguments presented so far for deletion strike me as completely without merit. WAS 4.250 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles do need clean-up at times, and re-evaluation of examples. I am rather worried by all the copyrighted text being quoted verbatim in some sections, and think we should at the least have a look at that. Adam Cuerden talk 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple tags to get the worst bits: I do hope they don't last long, but I don't have time to do anything myself. Adam Cuerden talk 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geomor's cuts

message: Cut completely. I disagree with this cut: It's probably in the top three creationist arguements - but I must admit to being worried about the lengthy quote (copyright infringement?).
In short, I think that some of his cuts, which were reverted, were quite rightly done, and think we should cut them again. Is there agreement on this? Adam Cuerden talk 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is consensus on keeping what was deleted as evidenced by its long standing presence in the article. You are of couse free to present arguments for this absurd deletion attempt, but the arguments presented so far for deletion strike me as completely without merit. WAS 4.250 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles do need clean-up at times, and re-evaluation of examples. I am rather worried by all the copyrighted text being quoted verbatim in some sections, and think we should at the least have a look at that. Adam Cuerden talk 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple tags to get the worst bits: I do hope they don't last long, but I don't have time to do anything myself. Adam Cuerden talk 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-orginisation and entropy

message: It had nothing whatsoever to do with complex iteration. It's a good quote, but shouldn't have been where it was. Adam Cuerden talk 12:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You CANNOT put an exact quote into the article without clearly indicating who said it RIGHT THERE, not in the footnote."  Can you point me to a wikipedia page with that rule, please.  There are a couple of other sites that have this problem and I want to be able to directly link to that rule.--Roland Deschain 19:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote Removed

message: Can we please stop restoring copyright violating material? (e.g. here) The version restored to doesn't even identify one of its quotes accurately. Adam Cuerden talk 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than just deleting it, can we not simply annotate it correctly and rewrite the section is such a way as not to put such heavy emphasis on lengthy quotes.  That way both sides get their wish.  We don't have to delete it and the copyright and format issues should get resolved.  It's called compromise and usually is the best way out of these edit wars.--Roland Deschain 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, what, this section sucks. That quote sucks. Somatic hypermutation is not evolution. Why is this bullshit in here at all? Graft 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except that any attempts to fix the section keep getting reverted - hnce making it hard to fix. Adam Cuerden talk 01:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is constantly subject to vandalism and alteration by creationists. It also has a long list of established editors, many of whom are highly credentaled in the field. Any edit that involves large scale deletions of text by an unknown (in terms of this article) editor, without any attempt at discussion, is just asking for an immediate, knee-jerk reversal. --Michael Johnson 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't engage in knee-jerk reversal. Use your head. If you can't, please don't bother editing this article. Graft 04:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Me? I didn't edit Adam Cuerden at all. I was just trying to explain why he was getting reverted. --Michael Johnson 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem!

message: I note that the wikipedia entry on Creationism has an entire section devoted to criticism of the argument. Why is there not an entire section in this article dedicated to criticism of evolution? I endorse the development of such a topic within the main body of this article.
-Patrick
:Sure. Just come up with some Creationist critiques that are actually valid, and we'll put them right in. I think you'll agree it's a waste of time to report specious arguments? Graft 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also keep in mind that this is a science article, so all criticisms should have some basis from the scientific literature.  Also read  Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology as this section discusses the most common popular criticisms of evolution and why they are not valid.--Roland Deschain 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the subsection of this entitled "Speciation" it suggests that the emergence of new 'species' is somehow proof for evolution. Creationists do not debate that new 'species' come along by means of natural selection. The reason I've added the ' is that I think we need a broader term than species. I think 'kind' covers it well. The bible says that animals will reproduce after their kind. Basic kinds can be observed inbreeding with different species within themselves. Eg dog kind (domestic dogs, wolfes, coyotes), cat kind (lions, tigers), horse kind (horses, zebras, donkeys). A new species is not a new kind and does not go against the bible. If one group of animals is cut off from other of that kind it is logical that long-term decendands have common traits because there is only the genetic information that was there when the original group was cut off. Since this is the only information there the future generations will only have these characteristics. Creationists have no argument that natural selection occurs. What we do not accept is new genetic information. Mutations happen, natural selection happens. These have been observed countless times. However no new genetic information is ever present. If a cow grows an extra leg it is not new information because the cow already has the DNA coding for legs. w00tboy 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy. Party at W00tboy's talk page for anyone who wants to discuss this. Graft 06:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The matter has been discussed before. Please check the archives for more details, though WP:NPOV#Undue weight will also give you a good introduction to the issues in hand. --Davril2020 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See also the NPOV FAQ on pseudoscience. Mikker (...) 19:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance?

message: The Gould quote "evolution is both a fact and a theory...", is somewhat enlightening.  But isn't it more precise to say that evolution is a fact, not a theory, and that natural selection is a theory that attempts to explain the fact of evolution?  Maybe a little more clarification is required to support that quote. Awinkle 18:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is incorrect to state that evolution is a fact, not a theory, because evolution is both a fact and a theory. Natural selection is not the modern theory of evolution: it is just one aspect of that theory, which is much more complex and multi-faceted than natural selection alone. The "theory of evolution" is modern evolutionary synthesis, not natural selection. The "fact of evolution" (like the "fact of gravity", its observed effects, as opposed to the theory of gravitation) is the day-to-day observed consequence of evolutionary processes, such as in antibiotic resistance. -Silence 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions between theory and fact 

message: The first call ... not my own ... was essentially ignore, so I will take up the banner here.
It is clear that a significant amount of space in this article on evolution is dealing with the religious controversy, either directly or indirectly (defining theory). Why? This article already has the maneuverability of an Aircraft carrier, something needs to be thrown overboard.  Am I the only one that sees that you claim the 'moral high ground' based on the Science behind evolution; then taunt the creationist with your diatribe on 'the controversy'. In the post above 'Conflict and Religion' energy was expended deliberating the meaning of literal by referencing the Torah for God sake.
We still devote space in defining Theory to the creationist (give up already)! This is a Wikipedia Article on Evoution not a political platform.  There is a hypocrisy here that is not lost upon those who oppose evolution as a viable theory. You do evolution a disservice by not allowing the theory to stand on its own merits. Debate the meaning of the word literal somewhere else and focus on the science in this entry. 
Free up some space in this article ...throw overboard the Evolution vs Religion rhetoric;  there are already two Main articles in Wikipedia devoted to this aspect.   Social Effect of Evolutionary Theory and Creation-evolution Controversy. 
Is this the weakness with Wikipedia, you can edit small things such as changing the word big to large; but when it comes to dramatic changes no one has the authority to hit the delete key? Perhaps this aircraft carrier needs a captain?
                J. Butler --66.56.207.111 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I suggested, for large changes in FA articles: take the section to be modified and put it in a sandbox (or even here in the discussion).  Edit it here till a consensus is reached, then move it over to the main article.  This is the most productive way I have found to cause large changes.  This article deals with the evolution/creationisms controversy as it applies to science.  Namely, the direct charges made against the science of evolution (theory, thermodynamics, etc etc).  I agree with you that that section needs to be trimmed, but it is still (to my great shame) still a prominent view point (however misguided) about evolution and its validity.  We are dancing on a sharp point here.  If we discuss these popular objections to evolution, the article is said to be against creationism and is political in nature.  If we do not discuss them, this article will be accused of ignoring objections to evolution by creationists.  The answer again is to have the section there, but maybe to trim it down and move the extra text to other articles.--Roland Deschain 00:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the advice ...  I created an account ... ty ... J. Butler  (UTC) --Random Replicator 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, I agree. Now my question is: Within the world of Wikipedia; how does one build consenses for such dramatic changes in an article? Certainly you can't simply high-lite the section 'Misunderstandings' and hit the delete key? Do you call for a vote? I'm thinking, changes of this magnitude are impossible.--Random Replicator 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading through your list of suggested components ... Hardy-Wienberg Equlibrium Model ... the backbone of understanding the mechanisms for evolutionary change. It seems to be 'missing' from this article all together. If/When the 'controversy' sections are removed, that would be an excellent place to improve on understanding of the science behind evolution. --Random Replicator 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CALL TO TRIM ARTICLE  (PART 2) 

message: "Also, we humans did not evolve from lesser primates."
...Since WHEN? I mean, bloody hell, "lesser" and "greater" are meaningless in evolution, but that's about as misleading as you can get. Deleting this section o' bizarreness. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was removed. Joelito (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...the Hell? 

message: Suggested Edit:
Copy/pasted from Article:
Mechanisms of evolution
Evolution consists of two basic types of processes: those that introduce new genetic variation into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing variation. Paleontologist Stephen J. Gould once phrased this succinctly as "variation proposes and selection disposes."[28]
These mechanisms of evolution have all been observed in the present and in evidence of their existence in the past. Their study is being used to guide the development of new medicines and other health aids such as the current effort to prevent a H5N1 (i.e. bird flu) pandemic.[29]
::The second paragraph seems to contribute nothing for clarity. Is the emphasis on "Evolution has been directly observed" which is nice but not relevant here or a 'plug' for research on the Bird Flu. I went through the links, they offer nothing to clarify the topic 'Mechanisms of Evoluion'. 
::I am going to try out the delete key if no one objects on the basis that this line distracts from the content and intent of this section and adds to the bulk of an already obese article. If you want to build my confidence ... say "go ahead".--Random Replicator 01:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Random Replicator. There are better examples, and this one seems added because of recent interest. GetAgrippa 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Edit:  Mechanism of Evolution 

message: I added a creationist rebuttal to evolution in order to provide a balanced point of view for this article - other controversial articles have similar 'sceptical' external links - is it not fair to add them for evolution too? SparrowsWing 08:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Only links relevant to evolution should be added here. I agree with the editor who removed your link. Apart from anything else it wasn't a very good website. --Guinnog 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see you are following the Wikipedia guidelines of being polite. SparrowsWing 09:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read  this to see that your balance argument is contradicted by Wikipedia policy.  Your misguided appeal for balance would make all articles unreadable.  We do not include your website in this article for the same reason the astronomy article does not include geocentric websites in theirs.  Both websites have nothing to do with the respective topic, as both topics are science oriented and the websites are public commentary at best.  You link would be far more appropriate in the Creation-evolution controversy.--Roland Deschain 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm the link you gave me states "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views." I would hardly call creationism a minority view. The creationism article contains several external links to critisism of creation in terms of evolution. You will notice that I am not campaigning for these to be removed, I am merely asking for the same balance to be present in the evolution article. Thank you for the other link - I will go and check that out as well. SparrowsWing 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Around the Western world, polls have revealed that people endorse evolution to the tune of about 80% on average. This is even higher (around 99%) when talking to scientists, especially biologists. It is only in the United States that a large proportion of the population still holds on to the creationist (of any stripe) view. On a global scale, creationism is very much the minority view.--Ramdrake 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to Ramdrake argument, this article both has a section on creationism and another section on common creationist claims (and why they do not invalidate the theory of evolution).  What I'm trying to show you is that from a scientific point of view (and this is a science article), there is no criticism regarding the core ideas of evolution discussed here.  There are large popular criticism about evolution (which has a section here) and several scientific misunderstanding about evolution (also discussed here).  So this article does discuss and acknowledge the creationism criticism of evolution, but it makes it quite clear that it is not a scientific criticism of evolution. --Roland Deschain 20:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Roland - I appreciate your clarification. I'm happy for that link to be excluded on that basis. SparrowsWing 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing point of view 

message: This could be perceived as advice, but since it is likely to contribute nothing, nor elicit a positive change it more likely falls under the category of trolling. Don’t ban me though, I promise not to come back … seriously. I have no doubt that many have contributed an enormous amount of time developing this article and are to be commended for your efforts. A collective mind, if you will, on the topic of evolution. Wishing to be a part, I sat down at the keyboard thinking that I might clarify some of the information in the Mechanisms of Evolution section. I deleted a line … what a sad commentary on my skills. 
But in my defense. An encyclopedia is a document used to obtain “general” information. I think you may have lost sight of your primary audience in this document. For example: If I asked any of you to explain Genetic Drift to the ‘typical’ reader at this site, would your response be the following:
Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to sampling variance. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation. Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies will tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency. Thus, fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population due to chance alone. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequencies therefore might drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles present in one population could be absent in the other, or vice versa).
Would your ‘average’ reader, pursuing information in Wikipedia go away with a clearer understanding of Genetic Drift? Genetic Drift is not a complex concept … yet.
My foray into the cyber world is over; back to the couch and Oprah where I can do no damage. --Random Replicator 02:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, RR - it's hard for specialists to write accessible text. Sometimes they forget what's obvious to people who aren't them and what's not. I seriously suggest you take a shot at rewriting that section right here on this talk page if you think it's bad. Graft 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guess I'm Trolling / Since I'm at loss as to how to contribute. 

message: ==Current Research==

Evolution is still an active field of research in the scientific community.  Improvements in sequencing methods have resulted in a large increase of sequenced genomes, allowing for the testing and refining of the theory of evolution with respect to whole genome data.  Advances in computational hardware and software have allowed for the testing and extrapolation of increasingly advanced evolutionary models.  Discoveries in biotechnology have produced methods for the de novo synthesis of proteins and, potentially, entire genomes, driving evolutionary studies at the molecular level.
===Micro RNA===
Small RNA or micro RNA (miRNA) appears highly significant in regulation of gene expression during development.  Micro RNA's contribution to evolution is considered an epigenetic mechanism in evolutionary developmental biology. Micro RNA appears to constitute 1% of the human genome. Scientists are designing silencing interference micro RNA in the hopes of shutting down genes involved in cancer, diseases, and the contribution of genes in developmental biology.
:Removed this section as only purpose seems to be to talk about micro RNA. Not comprehensive, not well formatted, feels out of place with the rest of the article. Needs to be thoroughly rethought. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Samsara. They are just hanging there. They should be included in Molecular biology section if anything. Comparative genomics (and archaic DNA anaysis)should be mentioned if it hasn't been. MicroRNA's are more about genome evolution and not essential for this article.GetAgrippa 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section