Talk:Evolution/Archive 31

message: There seems to be an error near the head of the article in the "Basic processes" subsection.  Firstly, the paragraph implies that all phenotypic variability is genetic in basis.  Since development is subject to in utero (in ovo, etc.) influences (both maternal inheritance and accidents), and an organism's phenotype can adapt and respond to the environment post-development, it might make more sense to say "This phenotypic variation is primarily the result of genotypes ...".  The paragraph goes on to say "Variants in gene sequences in the individuals of a population and the interaction of a genotype with the environment are involved in phenotypic plasticity".  I'd certainly agree with the latter portion of this (that genotype-environment interactions are involved in phenotypic plasticity), but the former seems incorrect to me (the article on phenotypic plasticity seems to agree).  I'll make appropriate changes to the article, but wanted to document my reasoning here.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenotypic plasticity 

message: Filll has provided a heads-up for a discussion at Talk:Level of support for evolution#Requested move:  I've trimmed out the discussion from this page to avoid duplication. .. dave souza, talk 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we have the start of a disagreement on this issue.--Filll 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I have looked at the article on human evolution and it is very good. I think it could use a cladistics chart like this http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Diversity/turtle_origins.htm.
I have looked but could not find one. 69.211.150.60 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give me any links? I would like to research this and maybe add it to one of the articles. I just have not found anything on the internet. 69.211.150.60 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another request, suggestion 

message: Would people who regularly watch this page please consider commenting here ?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for comments 

message: On race and intelligence, please  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't all these requests for comment belong better on Project talk pages than on other article talk pages? This page is specifically for discussing the Evolution article. -Silence 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did do that.  But I believe informed contributors to this page have the knowledge to make useful comments in this matter.  I do not think it is inappropriate or unusual for people to call attention to contributors to one article of an issue of possible interest at another article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Different articles aquire different sets of regulars who constitute social groups that over time establish by use ideosyncratic norms. Meaning we do that here. WAS 4.250 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WAS and that is why I think it is often good to seek fresh perspecitve, especially for an encyclopedia. I would encourage others to do like Slrubenstein seeking outside help to help push through edit wars by "experts". A fresh neutral unbiased perspective can get an encyclopedia article back on track. I know editors can be resistant to newcomers or non-experts, but this is an encyclopedia not a forum to debate an expertise so sometimes the converstion needs to be reined in to what is best for an encyclopedia article. Some articles of incredible interest are poorly developed and other articles of minor interest are overkill.  GetAgrippa 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for comments 

message: Just another small example of evolution at work ;).--Roland Deschain 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Genetic mishap"? Excuse a creationist for being so simple-minded, but I thought there was no such thing as "negative" or "positive" mutations when it came to evolution ;). Homestarmy 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course there are positive and negative mutations.  Cystic fibrosis is a negative mutation and AIDS resistance in certain European populations is a beneficial mutation.  I think what you meant to say that evolution has no ultimate purpose (ie: goal).--Roland Deschain 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, whether or not there are mishaps in evolution, there most certainly are mishaps in animal-breeding, which is more salient to this article.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of evolution: chicken --> duck 

message: In the lead paragraph, the article mentions the predictive power of evolution, but I can't see where that is explained.  Do we need to add something, or have I just missed it?Trishm 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictive power 

message: What is the name of that lizard specie that still has teeth and jaw that are halfway to evolving hammer, anvil and stirrup of the inner ear which more evolved creatures (such as mammals) have?
:The Devonian fish,Panderichthys, has a middle ear like structures. GetAgrippa 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The EvoDevo article should adress some of this, but a present it is poorly developed. I hope to contribute soon to address some of your suggestions. GetAgrippa 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans are no more evolved than anyother organism. Candy 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the lizard in question may be a guy called Gary who I once met at a party.  Candy 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny Candy! Met a few lizards too in my day. Thank you for changing the competitive trait statement in intro, that was driving me crazy!!!!! The success of a trait can be by genetic drift which is neutral and not a competitive process. Species branch into new environments with traits more suited to the new environment not that the ancestral trait was inferior. It sounds too much like the ole survival of the fittest. It is about differential survival and reproduction-(fitness not fittest) through successive generations. It is not about competition of traits that implies a direction towards perfection by competition of the fittest. Variations in traits prove adaptive per situation and environment and promote diversity, and traits can be gained and lost also(eyeless cave lizards and fish didn't lose the trait through competition). An ancestral parent species can thrive and be more successful in more environments than the branching species suited to a harsh environment. Competition is just a poor word choice because it gives the wrong impression, but that is not saying that ecological competition isn't a factor. GetAgrippa 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Candy, that was the funniest thing I've read since someone posted that Dinosaurs and Man existed at the same time, and there's lots of proof on the internet.  Orangemarlin 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orange, I must be a Dinosaur I just picked up on your comment "lots of proof on the internet" That is hilarious and true. I guess I missed the eight second rule. GetAgrippa 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No Candy, the funniest is that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. Now you have to admit that is funny. I can see Noah asking his sons "Ok whose turn is to feed the T. Rex. Sons, Sons, Where are you boys?" GetAgrippa 22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, now, all can be explained: I like this clarification – "Kirwan maintained that only animals that were most necessary for the use of man were present on the ark. Since the  "ravenous animals" would have posed a threat to the immediate survivors of  the deluge, Kirwan proposed that carnivores were probably created after the flood and after the "graminivorous"  animals had greatly  multiplied." from History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth .. dave souza, talk 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you love Creationists.  Every time they come to a dead end, they just invent something else.  I occasionally read the Creationist forums around the internet, and other than worried about the mental health of some of them, it is amusing.  They have created a house of cards to get around every single block to their story of Creationism.  Orangemarlin 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "God works in mysterious ways." "That's why its called faith". "God is testing you." "Get behind me, Devil." "Don't question the power of God." "Scientists are only human, trust in the the Bible." "What about all those scientific frauds; why should I believe anything that admits it isn't revealed Truth?" "God loves me and I go to heaven when I die; you say I don't matter and when I die I cease to exist - screw that!" WAS 4.250 04:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the name of that lizard? 

message: First off, I AM NOT TRYING TO START A DEBATE!!! Now that that's established and I have your somewhat-divided attention, it should be noted that, if anyone's even caring about a tiny little thing called **GASP!** NPOV, one should start with the obvious; changing the title of the "Misunderstandings" section of the article to "Criticisms of Evolution." I might just be misunderstanding a few things, myself, but I thought that dubbing all criticisms of one subject as mere 'misunderstandings' was against WP:NPOV. --208.127.64.180 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, someone should put up the Neutrality Dispute and Expert-Needed tags on this article. --208.127.64.180 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is appropriate because the discussion is about common misunderstandings about evolution. It is a science article and the issues discussed are common misunderstandings of science and evolution (not valid criticisms). There are criticisms within evolution, but so far no valid scientific ones outside (the level of support article deals with just how strong the scientific community and many faiths support evolution) as that is more the social and historic context which is discussed in another section. The article has been guided by dozens of experts and at one time was a graduate level article so the trend has been to make it shorter and accessible. The attempt is the present status, and since the big change there has been little activity. I think most are waiting to see the dust settle before the edits continue. I appreciate your using the Talk page rather than indiscriminately changing the article. I am a relative newcomer but this topic really brings out the accusations of NPOV and vandalisms, and a few faiths (mostly creationist) seem to think that evolution is some threat to their faith (which of course is absurd). If you have some expertise and want to contribute please use the Talk pages to advance and justify your suggestions. Then you will see the experts appear.GetAgrippa 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral point of view does not mean that all viewpoints are given equal weight.  That is a misunderstanding.  Evolution is a fact, and it is not disputed excepted by few people who, by faith, assume some god is in control of creation.  Religious articles can be discussed in a number of other areas.  Orangemarlin 18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Misunderstandings section contains both genuine misunderstandings (often by people who accept evolution) such as the telelogical idea that things can be 'more/less evolved' and what are in fact creationist's arguments against evolution. I think these two groups need to be seperated. Ashmoo 06:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstandings 

message: I changed this back to include the word frequency. The previous version appeared to rule out mutation, the introduction of new traits (at least it could be read this way). Also the possibility of a change to lots of different traits without any of them being 'dominant'.  — Axel147 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your change to intro is more in line with modern definition and population genetics. That is a great question and one I asked a bunch of students with the transposon that has altered insecticide resistance in the worlds population of drosophila. The transposon is something like 80,000 years old (as I recollect) but the jump and positive selection and adaptation is only 50-250 years old. I asked when did evolution occur (I got a wide range of answers by the way)? Pseudogenes undergo mutations which may eventually be useful and reintroduced as an active gene and a new trait with a new function. Variation proposing is evolution as much as nature disposing. GetAgrippa 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also have phenotypic selection with a heritable epigenetic change and then the genetic change and reproductive isolation occuring later, so a mutation or genetic change doesn't have to occur first. It is difficult to word all the permutations in a concise manner, so for the intro we should keep it simple. GetAgrippa 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: In my view, the #1 priority for bringing this article up to FA quality should currently be to improve the clarity and informativeness of Evolution#Basic processes. This is currently the most convoluted, uninformative portion of the article (particularly near the top), failing to provide proper context, clear explanations of terms, or, in some cases, even understandable sentence structure. Now that the lead section is more or less stable, we should focus all our efforts on making the "Basic processes" sections just as clear as the lead section is; the fact that we will be dealing with more complex topics than are covered in the lead section is not an excuse to leave important concepts ambiguous. -Silence 05:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To an extent, sure, though we should keep it to a minimum for the sake of brevity, and to space out the difficult concepts a bit. The below sections should introduce their own details. However, I think we should treat the first section in "Basic processes" as though it were a sort of "second lead section", a bit more technical and involved than the first, but up to the exact same standards of quality, clarity, conciseness, etc. I am concerned that sections of the article below the lead are being disregarded, and this is especially apparent in the dramatic difference in quality between the lead section and the paragraph immediately following it. A little expansion, clarification, and polishing of the beginning of "Basic processes" can work wonders for the comprehensibility and quality of the article as a whole. -Silence 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the outline reads it looks like Basic processes is Basic processes of genetic variation and the subsections more detail. Should it really be Basic processes of evolution which will include means of variation and processes that influence the outcome of variation (nat sel, genetic drift, gene flow)? Is that what you are suggesting that it be a second lead section with more detail of the processes of evolution? GetAgrippa 19:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current top priority for improvement: Basic processes 

message: I think the rotating DNA animation is too large to include directly in an article. (1 MiB) Aside from potentially annoying dial-up users, some web browsers have difficulty displaying animations that large. Perhaps it would be better to use a static image. The animated version could be linked to instead. ManaUser 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already discussed at Talk:Evolution/Archive_27#3-D_DNA_Molecule. For some reason the change was never made. -Silence 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead and do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ManaUser (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The DNA Animation 

message: How Mendel sort of looks like Dawkins?--Filll 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ever notice 

message: I went ahead and removed the entries from the See Also section, since that was frequently named as an issue by the FA reviewers.  If the change gets reverted, it may be time for me to give up on this article.
But while we're discussing FA, note that the current article is at 65 Kb, and some FA reviewers felt that 40 Kb was the maximum they could deal with. How do others feel about 40 Kb as a goal?  Since (above) I have specified some sections that I'd ruthlessly shorten, I believe this goal could be met, if other editors believe that's the right thing to do.  Please respond on the issue whether you'd be happy with a 40 Kb article.  EdJohnston 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the removal of the See Also links, I found them to be very helpful, linked me to many interesting articles I may not have found otherwise.  I also would not like to see the article be shortened, if this means that the article would never regain FA status, then so be it.  Dionyseus 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel that the current article is tight and well-written?  It is surely falling behind the standard set in other areas of Wikipedia.  It's just a big lump of random interesting biology at the moment.  Is that what you want?  EdJohnston 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's recently proved acceptable for a 98 kb article to achieve FA status, though quite a lot of that was citations. .. dave souza, talk 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Which article was that? EdJohnston 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, Charles Darwin. -Silence 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section removed (except for category pointers)