Talk:Evolution/Archive 41

message: Embarrassingly bad first draft: feel free to edit mercilessly. ;)  I tried to make it vivid with lots of concrete examples.  I'll add references if we agree that this is an OK approach.  Gotta run, Willow 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new version is vivid and specific. I found myself following with rapt attention until I got to the last paragraph, which seemed to be going off in a new direction, unrelated to the previous. So I fully support everything up until the last paragraph, but with great worry about the word 'villainous', which I assume has some special technical sense that I didn't at once perceive. EdJohnston 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved this to a new article called Evolution of complexity. TimVickers 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admittedly non-expert, unreferenced draft of complexity section 

message: Moved this to my Sandbox - Please come and edit. TimVickers 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new version is vivid and specific. I found myself following with rapt attention until I got to the last paragraph, which seemed to be going off in a new direction, unrelated to the previous. So I fully support everything up until the last paragraph, but with great worry about the word 'villainous', which I assume has some special technical sense that I didn't at once perceive. EdJohnston 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved this to a new article called Evolution of complexity. TimVickers 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplicity and complexity

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
::All captions shortened. TimVickers 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No full dates in article. TimVickers 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed the two sections that repeated the title. TimVickers 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed one subsection. TimVickers 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Summary style is used. TimVickers 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Many of these removed! TimVickers 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic peer review per [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 

message: I contributed to the peer review. I didn't like some parts.... Adam Cuerden talk 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I've cut a two short descriptions of mutation rate that relied too heavily on knowledge from later sections:
:Bacteria can even increase their mutation rate in response to stress, leading to the evolution of novel alleles that counter the source of stress.
:Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on linked alleles. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. 
The first should probably go in Natural selection, the second probably genetic drift, but I'm not quite sure how to work them in best. They aren't vitally important information, though they may clarify other things being discussed in those sections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutation rate 

message: The audio file of this article is either missing or broken. When it is downloaded all you get is an empty file. Not sure what to do to fix this. 87.198.133.90 22:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the same thing. Might be a problem with the file, or with the server. -- Ec5618 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio file missing/broken 

message: Well, let's cross our fingers, although everyone's hard work certainly will pay off.  I'm taking credit for fixing the citations a month ago or so.  LOL.  I can't wait.  Orangemarlin 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd be Bold. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this article is ALWAYS the longest to load on my browser.  Sometimes it takes up to 2 minutes to load, way more than any other article.  Might there be a reason?  Orangemarlin 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's very bold :) Has the peer-review been archived? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bold is good!!!!  Orangemarlin 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Nomination 

message: moved from Talk:Evolution/FAQ
I Transfered the page to the article section because it is not a talk page but instead a FAQ with biased answers so I hereby open the talk page for what it was meant for, to talk.--Peace237 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point, that there is no place for specifically for discussion of the FAQ.  However putting it in the article namespace probably is a bad idea since it might confuse people into thinking it was part of the article itself (faqs are not usually what should be in articles).  Something like a faq is fundementally for talk pages, so it should be in the talk namespace, I think.  I went ahead and undid the move.  If you have something in the article which you believe could be improved, and the faq contradicts it, you can discuss it here on the main talk page (be sure you have reliable sources).  --TeaDrinker 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TeaDrinker, this is second or third time you've done this for Peace237.  I think I've gone beyond assuming good faith, and next time, we should consider other alternatives above and beyond reverting their edits.  Your niceness is commendable, but how many times do you think we should allow this near-vandalism of the FAQ's?  Orangemarlin 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for transfer 

message: Apparently there is supposed to be a spoken article, but it doesn't have any content. Anyone know what happened? Axl 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's discussed above. I think there is no point in making a spoken version of this until the FAC is over, as this isn't going to be a stable version. TimVickers 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I missed that above. I look forward to listening to it soon. :-) Axl 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken article? 

message: In the Common descent section, the article states "Darwin inferred the common descent of organisms from four simple facts about organisms." I'm probably just completely blind, but I can only see three facts stated in the remainder of the paragraph. Little help? -- MarcoTolo 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and finally, that organisms, as Linneaus and others had described, can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups. Tomgreeny 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew it must be that easy - my eyes just passed-over the "finally" about a dozen times....<sigh>. Thanks for the clarification. -- MarcoTolo 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Four'' simple facts? 

message: Artificial evolution is now widely used in many technical applications. Pioneers include Ingo Rechenberg (1960s) and John Holland (1970s) and others. This should be mentioned somewhere. Algorithms 12:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was covered in the History section, but I've split this off into a "Uses in technology" section. I've also added a little on artificial selection, since under the general definition of evolution being change over time, this does fit as a mechanism, albeit very minor. TimVickers 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Evolution 

message: Currently number 76 (it's the repeeated ref named Darwin). Quadzilla99 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, fixed. TimVickers 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank ref 

message: Since people were complaining about this not being downloadable, I'll take it on faith that the link can be deleted until somebody makes a new recording. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed audio link 

message: Taking a hint from BenB4's comment on the FAC, I'll pick this topic up again if I may. The points I would make are:
#It's a nice illustration, both aesthetically and conceptually. It's simple and intuitive.
#It illustrates natural selection, and, as such
#It illustrates micro-evolution; in conclusion:
#It illustrates natural selection far better than it illustrates evolution
Surprisingly, when I checked natural selection, I saw that its lead image illustrates evolution perfectly. Could the two images simply be swapped? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is already in the article in the section on speciation. I think the objection that was made to such images previously was that they do not illustrate evolution, which is a process, rather they illustrate some outcomes of the process. TimVickers 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ask Dave Souza about this - he may know of an appropriate photograph of an ancestral species along with domestic variants - maybe pigeons? I'm not an expert on domestication, but there are probably examples where the individuals have lost the inability to interbreed. I'll admit that this particular fact wouldn't be very easy to show in an illustration. Personally, I'm happy with the assertion that evolution is simply change over time. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer Ammonites. Adam Cuerden talk 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about a wolf and a poodle? TimVickers 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would a poor choice since the article does not contain any information on domestication or selective breeding.--BirgitteSB 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends if it's vertebrate or cephalopod. Adam Cuerden talk 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So the last eye in the series is a cephalopod eye? It just looks strikingly like a human eye with a blind spot to me. TimVickers 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Auge. Adam Cuerden talk 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image: suggestion 

message: ...I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity needs a look in from people who know the subject - Cradle of humanity seems to be some sort of POV "Teach the Controversy" fork of Recent single-origin hypothesis ("Out of Africa" theory) or Human evolution. Adam Cuerden talk 08:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could please all give your opinion on this, one way or the other. It's going to be a close call, and if we can't get it deleted, we'll have to start editing it extensively, which is going to take away from everybody's time. Let's not let creationists open yet another battleground and attack our flanks. Cheers, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cradle of humanity]] AfD 

message: I like the idea of explaining multicellullarity's origin in cooperation somewhere in this article. It's a very well-chosen example, and very much the kind of thing that should be explained
This paragraph, however, ignores the evolution, and instead talks about the end result, which is ridiculously off-topic. Let's rewrite this and move it to Evolution of life, except altruism, which should probably be simplified to kin selection (with a brief mention of reciprocity), given a concrete example like bees, and moved to natural selection. 
:However, not all interactions involve conflict. One of the striking features of the natural world is that genes, cells, and organisms cooperate to form higher-order entities.{ For example, cells in animals sacrifice their reproduction to increase the fitness of the entire organism. Here, cells respond to specific signals that instruct them to either grow or kill themselves. If cells ignore these signals their uncontrolled growth can cause cancer. Organisms cooperate as this can provide benefits through kin selection and group selection, as well as direct, indirect and network reciprocity.
Adam Cuerden talk 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those are way out of our scope, I fear. We deal a bit with that in a couple sections on levels of evolution, but we can't do everything. Adam Cuerden talk 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The references linked in the "levels of selection" discussion deal with this in a lot more detail. TimVickers 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multicellularity 

message: I think at this point in the FAC, the article needs a feature freeze, where only things of a grammatical, punctuation or spelling nature get fixed. Otherwise we won't be able to satisfy the stability criterion of FA. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not new sections or addition of new material, but this does not apply to changes in response to reviewer's comments, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - "...improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply." TimVickers 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, that's all very well in theory, but what if two of your reviewers don't agree? I'm happy to say this on the FAC if that helps, but if people can just keep any larger refactoring suggestions to themselves, that will help sail the ship home safely. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the policy. I think it unlikely any reviewers will ask for a significant expansion or rearrangement of the article, but I have come across this situation before, during the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bacteria. Here, we had a quick poll on if the changes were indeed an improvement. Decided they were not, reverted back to the original version and then the article was promoted the day after that had been dealt with. TimVickers 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As an aside, some of the changes I have made recently that don't seem to be in response to any FAC comments are to incorporate suggestions made at a parallel peer-review process by User:Plumbago in their sandbox. TimVickers 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry about this everyone.  I've not taken part in a FAC before, so wasn't quite clear on what I should do with my comments.  Anyway, they're all visible here, together with notes from TimVickers and Adam Cuerden.  I hope I've not caused too much bother with these.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature freeze 

message: It would've been interesting to know if seeds could evolve to another kind of seeds and find out where they come from or who made them.
19:18, 8 June 2007  twentythreethousand
:...I don't follow you. Adam Cuerden talk 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which came first, the seeds, or the plant? TimVickers 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeds (and, arguably, animal gametes) are pretty much an extreme adaptation of alternation of generations, with the gamete phase substantially reduced. Adam Cuerden talk 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeds are Zygotes not Gametes. They couldn't, however, "evolve into another kind of seed" (I'm not fully sure what you meant by that. Mutations are conceivable, I suppose, before mitotic division begins.--THobern 09:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. But the components that produce them are gametes. I suppose the seed itself is more like... I dunno, the larva in insects: a phase where energy is gathered for the next transformation. Adam Cuerden talk 14:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeds 

message: I tweaked slightly the wording in the section on social and religious controversy. These are the reasons:
*Singling out Catholicism is a good object lesson, but it is somewhat artificial and definitely arbitrary. For one, it ignores religions other than Christianity.
*There are definitely Catholics who are creationists and the magesterium does not consider such beliefs to be in error. While tacit support by the intellectuals in the Vatican for theistic evolution arguments is clear, there exist many Catholics (i.e. Sam Brownback) who plainly do not share their view. This problem is too iteratively complicated to include in a summary article on evolution itself. Removing mention of Catholicism specifically avoids this problem.
*Trying to demarcate between creationist denominations and theistic evolution denominations can be difficult as there are often members of both camps in many church groups. It's better to indicate that there exist creationists rather than trying to ascribe ecclesial institutions to this belief.
I hope that people see the main content isn't changed in this edit, just the wording and perspective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 June 2007
:Looks an improvement to me. The first part of the sentence seems a bit awkward, considering that even before Darwin's Origin of Species there where Christians, including theologians, who welcomed evolution as fitting with their beliefs:
:Although many practioners of religion have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through theological development,
:Playing around with it a bit, here are a couple of possibilities:
:Although many practioners of religion find their beliefs to be compatible with evolution,
:or
:Although many practioners of religion consider their beliefs compatible with evolution,
:Not to sure about the "practioners of religion" either, but can't think of a better way of putting it. Comments? .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Theists" is the correct term. TimVickers 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly not; many religous people are not theistic (what about Buddhism?).  I would think that "religious practitioners" is adequate.  bikeable (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just wanted to add, as far as I know belief in evolution isn't a problem in Buddhism. At least the Dalai Lama supposedly supports scientific theories about evolution. Does any significant amount of non-theistic religious people have any problems with evolution? Perhaps Theists could be used after all? Delta Tango • Talk 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I don't know if there are Hindu creationists either. TimVickers 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are. Lots. Sheep81 04:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The previous version was better, more specific, neutral, and clear.  This version introduces unnecessary inflammatory language from what was a carefully constructed neutral version.  No need for "many practitioners" or "continues to exist a group of vocal ... ".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking that into account, I've tried to get closer to the original, while giving a link to a page summarizing denominations supporting evolution rather than singling out the RC position, leaving out "other" as there are RC creationists, and changing "theistic origin beliefs" to "literal  interpretation of origin beliefs" as they're generally the same beliefs but with a different interpretation, and there might be non-theistic creationists.  By the way, congratulations to all on FA status – thought I'd better read it through carefully before "voting" and got diverted, so you've beaten me to  it. Well done,, .. dave souza, talk 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison between creationists and theistic evolution 

message: The reference used for four citations was p. 490 of the 2nd. edition of Origin of Species, which is a wonderful closing paragraph, but didn't cover the relevant points. I've therefore changed it to link to p. 1 of the 1st edition, where the second paragraph of the introduction describes how Wallace made the same discovery and brought about joint publication. This basically covers citation "a" and I've added a reference to the historical sketch in the 3rd. edition where Darwin acknowledges related earlier ideas, including the brief account of natural selection published by Matthew in 1831. The citation regarding the misconception that evolution is "progressive" seemed to me better covered by a Scientific American reference, so I've changed it. As now, citation "b" states supports the statement that "Adaptations are structures or behaviors that enhance a specific function, causing organisms to become better at surviving and reproducing.", and while the Introduction covers the subject, it doesn't actually have a simple definition on these lines. Similarly, citation "c" refers to a list of points which are covered in the book, if not in the intro. It might be useful to find more specific references for these citations. ... dave souza, talk 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin references 

message: The scrollable text idea is pretty neat when so many references have to be accommodated, but it messes up the printability of the entire article, in my experience. - Bevo 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it either. Aaron Bowen 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the online version's scrollable reference section.  It's the side-effect on the printable version of the article that is presently unfortunate.  Hopefully that might change without any need to compromise the online version if a technical solution is found that takes into account expanding the entire content of a scrollable region, as possible, in the printable version. - Bevo 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, here is a version with the references inline.  The list is truly massive: it scrolls on for several pages, and does encumber the overall readability of the article.  (Apologies to Tim for the edit conflict.)  Silly rabbit 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neat and reduces the apparent size of the article so looks good, but the inline citation links no longer work so well as they only take you to the first half dozen cites, then you have to scroll down watching out for the coloured one. A show/hide feature would work better, in my opinion, ideally set to hide as default, but opening up when you click on an inline cite link. As for readability, in my experience it's easy enough to zoom down past the list using the space bar, so the only advantage of the scroll bars is for those wanting to skip the cites and see what's at the end, easily done anyway. ... dave souza, talk 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing that problem with the inline citation links.  When I click on the link, the references automatically scroll to the appropriate highlighted item.  I tested with IE 6 and Firefox. - Bevo 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this another IE7 bug? This works fine for me on all the browsers I can test. TimVickers 15:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use IE7, and the scroller finds the articles just fine - that's not the problem. Wow, I'm surprised this feature is creating such a hum. My feelings are, reducing the references is good because it improves the look of the article AND saves paper for those few that are going to print the article; how many members of the public really read the refs anyway, and those that do would likely want to use the linked features they get online. I know that if I had printed the Evolution article and got 6 pages of a reference list I would not be happy. I also think the long list prevents readers from scrolling down to find info hidden at the bottom of the page.  But I do agree, if there is an option of turning them on or off (like with some of the navboxes) it would be good - giving choices is always good! Ciar 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Printable version of a FA. TimVickers 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work so well on my browser (Apple Safari).  Orangemarlin 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm using Safari too, so it appears that the "jump to highlighted item feature" only works with other browsers. ... dave souza, talk 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using safari and it does jump to roughly the right place.  I find I have to scroll up two references though, to see the correct one. David D. (Talk) 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be time for me to try to update Safari, and for that matter update the system to 10.3.9  – however, the response at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css suggests it's perhaps a Safari bug, which means that the citations become tedious for many lazy editors like myself. Grrr. .. dave souza, talk 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If it makes you feel any better, it also happens in Konqueror.  Maybe it's bug in the khtml common to both interfaces. Silly rabbit 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, as I've tried saying at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Expanding scroll boxes for printable version, if there are many users suffering with the bug we don't really want such features to make reference sections significantly less usable for them. In my view, .. dave souza, talk 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scrolling references become unusable in specific browsers, one workaround may be to use some browser-specific CSS. Something that said "if user is running Safari, turn off scrolling references" would do the trick. This sort of thing is already done to fix a variety of bugs in IE. It's hackish, but it would alleviate the problem until a proper fix were implemented in Safari and other affected browsers. --David Iberri (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to wander too far off topic, but with Safari being launched for Windows, and the way iTunes owns the Windows market for music management, maybe Dave and I won't be the oddballs here.  But it is well known that Mac users are more intelligent than Windows users and accept Evolution as a fact, so it probably doesn't matter.  But back on topic, when I click on a reference, it seems to miss by 2 or 3 references, so I end up scrolling a bit.  Lazy as I am, I don't like it.  Orangemarlin 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it was.  Sheesh!!!!  Considering the Creationist vs. Evolution arguments that I've seen on here, talking about the formatting of references is refreshing.  Orangemarlin 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it, only an Internet Explorer user would be dumb enough to take that seriously, and we certainly don't have any of those bozos here! TimVickers 22:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet Explorer is still out there?  And people use it?  Oh, well, Natural selection should fix the situation.  :)  <-- smile added just in case the humor is lost on certain editors.  Orangemarlin 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg for you to accept my apology. It was a result of seeing some other insulting attacks on other people in the past. My mistake was that I mixed you up with one of your friends (hint: starts with an F, 2nd letter is an i), who you appear to work so closely with, I mixed it up. This particular user has an attitude like the world around him consists of idiots and he's the only one with a brain. :) But anyway, who uses Internet Explorer?? Hope they like getting random penis enlargement popups. Wikidan829 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: H---ee---eeyyy......at least I evolved from Netscape (eventually!).  Old habits die hard - just like my browser if I try to give it too much to think about!! And actually - nope I'm pop-up free (read as you wish, but my gender doesn't take offense anyways!!) ;p Ciar 00:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section as scrollable text 

message: The links to this page's archives hadn't been updated since I stopped hanging around here a couple months ago, so I've added links to the 6 archives created since then.  Someone else should take care of that from now on.  Remember that Miszabot is making the archives (settings easy to change at the top of this page), but it doesn't make any links to them.  Gnixon 14:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: The beginning of the sentence "Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can produce new or altered traits..." seems redundant.  Are there any random changes in genes which are not mutations? Or should it read "Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits..."? — Swpb talk contribs 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was thinking about gene amplification and chromosomal rearrangements, but these do fall under the broad definition of mutation. TimVickers 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: one can say that random environmental forces acting on the cell or embryo can affect phenotype, but this is of course different from mutation and arguable not relevant tot his article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree with that. TimVickers 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: This sentence should be changed: "The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[5]" I disagree with the word "first." In the Introduction to Origin of Species (p. 8, Carlton House, NY), Darwin says, "As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthew." Darwin says that Wells in 1813 is the "first recognition which has been indicated" (p. 4). 
Boethian 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In science, priority goes to the person who first publishes an idea in the scientific literature. Where and when were these previous ideas published? If you post the citations that should solve it pretty easily. TimVickers 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems evident to me that the issue here is the difference between a theory and a principle.  I do not think the difference is trivial.  As Thomas Kuhn observed, people often have ideas that anticipate their formalization as scientific theories by someone else.  I think the language in the lead is fine but I would have no objection to elaborating on antecedants to Darwin's idea in a history of the theory section. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See footnote [5] "^ a b c Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species, 1st, John Murray, p. 1. . Related earlier ideas were acknowledged in Darwin, Charles (1861). On the Origin of Species, 3rd, John Murray, p. xiii. ." which mentions Matthew, but not Wells – that must be in a later edition. It's a tricky point to summarise, but arguably Wallace and Darwin were first to publish a "theory" of "natural selection", though others had published ideas about the principle earlier. Evidently not much notice was taken of their joint publication either, until Darwin published The Origin. ... dave souza, talk 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For info – Chief Additions and Corrections, Third Edition – Fourth Edition of 1866 p. xiv. "A notice is given of Dr. Wells' work, in which the doctrine of natural selection, as applied to man, was first clearly propounded." .... "In 1813 Dr. W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society 'An Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro;' but his paper was not published until his famous 'Two Essays upon Dew and Single Vision' appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the races of man, and to certain characters alone." ... dave souza, talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority for 'evolution by natural selection' 

message: I've been bold and nominated this for FA. It's probably the best of our sub-articles, and I really would like some day for every article in :Template:Evolution to be FA. Though that probably means expanding Selection a lot, or merging it and Natural selection. Adam Cuerden talk 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Natural selection]] 

message: :::This may be off-topic troll bait, but dunno where it fits: have you all seen Countdown to a synthetic lifeform, 04 July 2007, NewScientist.com news service, Peter Aldhous – Church trying to create life! <ducks> .... dave souza, talk 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had seen some of that and seen the patent application by Craig Venter. This is a far more complete summary and maybe even suitable as the subject of an article here?--Filll 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic but fascinating 

message: "Because an individual's phenotype results from the interaction of their genotype with the environment, the variation in phenotypes in a population reflects the variation in these organisms' genotypes.[12]"
This section is discussing genetic variation.  Do we want to spell out the distinction between heritable variation and variation due to the enviromnent?  It's not clear why the opening sentence mentions the environment.
::i retract this question.  i was reading this article bottom up first.  I see now that the discussion of heredity above spells this outWikiskimmer 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes from two different interpretations of the word "sites", I'm using it here to refer to base pairs, while you are using it to refer to loci that are many thousands of base pairs in length. Hence, if two sequences are 99% identical, they are almost the same under my definition, but polymorphic under yours. I've rephrased this to be less ambiguous - "Despite the constant introduction variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species." Species overall share very high levels of nucleotide identity. Tim Vickers 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah... Then what's our point?  that there is little variation?  but all it takes sometimes is one basepair change to radically change a protein, i.e. sycle celled anemia.  The texts i cited seem to think it is important that there is much variation in populations.  what do we want to say here, that populations are very homogenous phenotypically and that shows up in the fossil record as stasis, or that populations contain abundant variation, which is important because this is the fodder for evolution, i.e. in a peripatric speciation event?  Or do we want to say both?Wikiskimmer 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to give some context to the commonly-cited factoids about how genetically-different two species are, 95% similarity between humans/chimps for example. So I make the general statement that within a species genetic differences are small, and add the proviso that even small differences can be significant. Tim Vickers 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems with section on variation: 

message: Hi, I'm here from the September 11, 2001 attacks page.  We field a lot of repetitious questions, much like evolution does, and are considering whether or not to add a FAQ, like you guys have here.  We just wanted to know if you've found it useful -- do people actually read it, or do they just post anyways?  --Haemo 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very useful as a boilerplate reply to the standard examples of strangeness on the talk page. Tim Vickers 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the original author of our FAQ page (although User:Silence modified it considerably afterwords). Although they are not really encouraged in articles, I thought it would be valuable on these controversial pages. By aggressively userfying trolling, directing people to FAQ and a well-catalogued archive, and farming out controversial parts to a large number of subsiduary daughter articles, we have reduced trouble at this main page considerably, which was our goal. We have refocussed this article on just the pure science, and left the other nonsense to other pages where it can be dealt with easier.--Filll 02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ? 

message: I created an article origin of religion, that is based on recent findings in human evolution. The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. Looking for comments from anyone who has some knowledge on evolution. Muntuwandi 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of religion