Talk:Evolution/Archive 29

message: It strikes me that it might be time to archive chunks of this page that are inactive now.--Filll 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive time?

message: The statement that Ernst Mayer thought gene flow to be counterproductive to speciation is true, but he was incorrect as more recent finds indicate:Hey J. Recent advances in assessing gene flow between diverging populations and species. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006 Dec;16(6):592-6. Epub 2006 Oct 19. Also HGT and hyridization produce speciation so Gene flow occurs during speciation. GetAgrippa 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Flow

message: The first sentence. Become "more or less" common. Is there an alternative to "more or less" that doesn't carry the baggage of the phrase "more or less" that translates to maybe, maybe not". On second thought, maybe more or less has a 'feel" of indecisiveness. For example: No big deal, I could "more or less" give a crap whether it's changed or not. But seriously, no big deal so please don't beat me in the ground with endless paragraphs of why my thoughts are "more or less" befuddled. 
An addendum: 100% of my high school research papers (science topics) used Wikipedia as a reference. There are many reasons why they shouldn't ... I already know this and it will be addressed. But the fact that they did, demonstrates that it is a primary tool among high school students. My guess is that few with a masters or phd's use Wikipedia for research. Your focus has been on the introduction; the hardest part to simplify, but please read through the entire article. There are many places there that could be crystalized. I'm guessing it would be easier than it has been on the intro. So ... if you feel a sense of ownership to any particular section, would you consider rereading and perhaps re-writing with at least some empahsis on simplification of vocabulary and perhaps breaking-up some very long sentences; not dumbing it down; (we did that next door in the intro) but, with an eye to readability; unlike this sentence that I am using to describe the delemia! 
This is still one of my favorite lines: "Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency." 
I did tell my students when viewing an entry to look over the discussion page. It would give them insight into the credibility of the article. I am so impressed with your commitment to excellence ... and you are not even paid.  Cheers --Random Replicator 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it's "More or less common relative to others", we could probably change to "more common relative to others" without much loss of meaning. The rest of the article is the next project. Adam Cuerden talk 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like "more or less common". In this case it isn't "more or less" common, it's "more common or less common". In any case it's now "prevelant" not common. Losing the "less" part of the structure though Adam implies that evolution or variation only happens when an allele frequency increases which is not so.  Candy 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an awful sentence by any standard. Unreadable by high school student and PhD alike.--Filll 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the term "blueprint" misleading? As discussed below. I used it in the Introduction Article: Evolution occurs through changes in genes, the "blueprint" for constructing the organism. Should I change it to "instructions". Also. "inherited traits become more common or uncommon over successive...."  Would "more common or less common" work  for balance. Or perhaps just "increase or decrease" which takes fewer words. --Random Replicator 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  become more or less common  

message: Yesterday I brought a comment to the table that simpy states that the evolution article in Wikipedia is not neutral in some of its wording. The major issue being that the article infers that all scientists believe that evolution is fact. I have read many examples of biologists, paleontologists, geologists and other scientists who have their doubts to the validity of the theory. My suggestion is that for the article to preserve neutrality, it should state that not all scientists are convinced or at least say that "most" scientists agree, etc. etc. Since then I've been peppered with circular reasoning and ad hominem arguments that avoid the issue. Some people have even accused me of forcing my religious beliefs into the subject when I not once mentioned my religious beliefs. I did not advocate creationism, ID or any other alternative to evolution. That is not my purpose here. The argument that keeps coming back to me is that everybody who matters -- the "revelant scientific community" -- believes in evolution so there is no scientific debate. Only relgious and social debate. Since there is no scientific debate, the argument goes, there are no sides to be taken and therefore no bias to avoid. This just doesn't make sense. Of course there is no debate when the only scientists you allow in the debate room are the ones that agree with your presumption that evolution is fact and supported by all scientists. Maybe you can personally reject a source that does not agree with your POV but you can't ignore opposition when the goal is to preserve neutrality. If there are two (or more) sides to an argument, positioning the article to favor only one side is bias. I sense that I will get nowhere when it comes to atually making any changes in the language of the article, but I have made my objections to the neutrality known. Clayc3466 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably would have been wiser to simply add this comment to the end of the neutrality conversation rather than delete everyone else's comments and replace them with a new one. Chickenflicker---♣ 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chickenflicker (which is very cool screen name), you're probably correct but the string was getting too long and convoluted. I simply grew tired of the thing. So I guess since I started the conversation I took some editorial perogrative and deleted the whole thing. Clayc3466 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Neutrality