Talk:Evolution/Archive 22

message: The main article is disabled from likely vandals. I like it!!!! How long will this last?
This article is about evolution, so the least time we spend on I.D. or Creationism discussions the better. GetAgrippa 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are typically fairly brief in duration. --Davril2020 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still protected; when will it be lifted? It doesn't affect me, but it has been five days now. Titanium Dragon 04:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If no one objects I'll remove the semi again. JoshuaZ 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? I'll be "on duty" for a while : ) Doc  Tropics 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock Out

message: I have made several changes just now, following the suggestions of many editors above, to shorten the controversy section--and I cleaned up some of the more recondite parts of the biology as well. I am stopping here, to see if others agree that its an improvement. If so, I will continue. 
;In any case a few more quotations are needed & have been marked, and I need a wording that traditional orthodox Judaism doe _not_ accept evolution. DGG 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll notice I've rv-ed your shortening of the controversy section - can you please explain why a change is necessary? Mikker (...) 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DGG. I actually can't see how your editing is supported by stating that it was the suggestion of editors above. I don't see an improvement. Certainly, I am not advocating a clean up of a few words here and there. From my perspective there is some serious editing needed. That's why I haven't touched the topic. It needs a bit of thought and discussion before hand. Candy 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be equally effective to approach a major reorganization by first cleaning out the unnecessary parts. Anyway, I deliberately edited in a way to make it easy to revert. No hard feelings. Discuss as you please. DGG 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more concise

message: I hesitate to mention this, because it really belongs in the Human Evolution article, but it does demonstrate how information gained from inference, from Neanderthals in this instance (Recent Nov Science Issue), is useful when compared to more direct 
(DNA) evidence. They demonstrated that humans and Neanderthals probably had the same common ancestor 700,000 years ago and the Human and Neanderthal lineages split 360,000 years ago. Comparing Human, Chimpanzee, and Neanderthal was useful to demonstrate similarities and differences. This is the kind of elegant work that really convinces me of evolution, because fossil inference and molecular analysis come together to paint a more complete picture. They also indicated that after the split they did not interbreed. GetAgrippa 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting, and potentially useful (somewhere, if not this particular article). Is there a link available to that, or is it not available online? Doc  Tropics 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Science 17 November 2006:Vol. 314. no. 5802, pp. 1113 - 1118. Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA. This kind of work is still met with some skepticism, however the merits of the work are obvious.GetAgrippa 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to both of you! Very interesting indeed. I know this will be useful somewhere : ) Doc  Tropics 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaic Neanderthal DNA

message: I just think kudos should go to everyone who's invested time in this article.  It is simply one of the best on Wikipedia, and is truly NPOV in discussing the facts of the Science of Evolution.  I have used some of what has been written in the article to write a letter to some crazies on the local Board of Education.  What was especially useful was some of the discussion in here that gave me the facts to counter some of the more specious of points set out by the Religious Creationist lunatics.  Thanks to everyone!OrangeMarlin 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree OM, it's a great article written by knowledgable and dedicated contributors. Interestingly, there is mention at the Pump here about a new development (not yet available) to provide for stable versions of articles which would apparently protect them from random editing. Needless to say, I'm extremely interested...what better place to apply it than here? Doc  Tropics 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great, except how would one add new data.  Say we really did find a rabbit in precambrian rocks?OrangeMarlin 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current scheme seems to revolve around a stable 'front page' per article, and a Wiki page in the background (or vice versa). That way, readers could specifically read the stable page, without worrying about vandalism. -- Ec5618 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the best 

message: imagine for a moment you are not well versed in evolution.   would the terms "allelic frequency" mean anything to you?
secondly, "allelic frequency" is not a good way of describing evolution.   genes come and go, chromosomes go from round to straight, duplicate and invert themselves and so on, and its increasingly clear that alleles as we usually think of them and describe them (flavors of genes) are not the only means of evolution.
perhaps we can use a simpler way to describe evolution?
Amarilloarmadillo 07:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you think doesn't fall within the allele framework, because I can't think of an example. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleles are different versions of genes.   Creating entirely new genes is not the same as having variations in the frequency of a version of a genes.   Heritable methylation is also not changes in pre-existing allele frequency but is a means for evolution.   I haven't seen anyone describe alleles as possible versions of genes that don't yet exist, they are always described as real versions of real genes that exist in some organism (past or present--but not future).  Anyway, even if we can't agree on the philosophy of what an allele is, wouldn't you agree that mere mortals don't know what they are?  Amarilloarmadillo 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I already pursued this line mentioning epigenetic, transposons, miRNA,etc., but if you read all the definitions in linking articles you will see the term fits (epialleles,etc). I wanted to change to just genomic change, but the way everything is defined (genes and alleles) it encompasses all. I agree the definition of a gene has changed dramatically from when I was first trained. GetAgrippa 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  allelic frequencies 

message: There's an example of a separate introductory article on a science over at Wikiproject physics. Quantum mechanics starts with a heading pointing to Introduction to quantum mechanics for a less technical explanation of the field. Are there any reasons, policies or other, that suggests that this isn't a good idea to try out with evolution? 
Maybe this is a way to keep this article at the standard it is now, and still be able to share knowledge to those new to biology and this subject. Delta Tango • Talk 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a simpler article at simple:Evolution. Wouldn't it be better just to provide a prominent link to that? —JeremyA 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it might be. I have asked in the proposals area of the Village Pump if there might be a change of the MOS to have a uniform link style at the top of the article's page to another page, such as an Introduction Page, or a the appropriate Simple Wikipedia Page, or some other tutorial or primer-like material. One advantage of doing the introductory or tutorial article in Wikipedia rather than "Simple Wikipedia" is that it keeps the readers within Wikipedia itself for links etc, and they do not get pulled off into the links on Simple Wikipedia. Of course, there is no reason that an Introduction to Evolution page could not have a link to Simple Wikipedia, if something very low level is required.--Filll 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Quantum mechanics example gives rise to two lengthy articles. I prefer a box or separate section within the article with the basics. In the Smooth muscle article it has a basic and advanced sections for contraction-relaxation. One just the basics and the other more detailed. That way you capture a larger audience and provide lots of information and detail for the inquiring mind. This article is already so long a preface section would have to be a short concise outline or paragraph. The article already needs shortening and little progress has been made on that front, so I guess a separate article would be more appropriate the more I think about it. GetAgrippa 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia: 'Simple English uses fewer words and easier grammar than the original English Wikipedia. This is not its only difference. It is for people with different needs: students, children, and adults with learning difficulties. Simple English is also much easier for "off-duty" people who may like simple language for other reasons: tiredness, unfamiliar topics, completing other duties, distracting backgrounds, or worry'. The Simple English Wikipedia is specifically aimed at the audience being discussed above. Rather than duplicate their efforts it seems to me that it would be better to use the resource that they are trying to provide (+help to improve their article if it is deemed sub-par).  —JeremyA 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "simplified" article at simple:Evolution will not serve. Hence the "OMFG" quote from Candy. If I thought I could delete it without being banned, I would. All of you should go there and read it! But... maybe it could be deleted and re-written at that site. I doubt you could make it much worse.  Thoughts? --Random Replicator 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow ... I went back and looked again .... simple:Evolution ... amazing. --Random Replicator 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  No one will ban you for saving that page. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. It does not look so good with its current formatting. It might be better for the start of a simple or introductory article.--Filll 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote just a sentence linking to Simple article and improve that article.GetAgrippa 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate introduction 

message: Since three physics articles are already using the other format where there is a link to an introductory article here, let's try it here. This format is used in special relativity and general relativity and quantum mechanics, as  you can see. I cut and pasted the Simple Wikipedia article into an introductory article here on Wikipedia. Lets edit this article and make it better. I will even put the blue box in there for people to play with. I am not sure if the blue box should go at the top or bottom or maybe along the right hand side, descending. --Filll 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the current change.  While we are playing with the intro, can we somehow change the first intro sentence.  The phrase variable variations is even confusing for me, and I've been working in the field of biology for a long time.--Roland Deschain 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree just drop variable variations to "by shifts in the units of heredity".GetAgrippa 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please edit the Introduction to evolution article as you see fit. I think it also needs some figures and the blue box I would propose to make as a vertical box down the right hand side of the Introduction to evolution article. I do not yet know how to do that but I am sure it is easy to do. --Filll 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try a compromise

message: I'm making a change to the Entropy and life section.
The text stated:
"It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics."
The phrase "without supernatural intervention" is unnecessary.  It doesn't have anything to do with whether evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  A miracle would still be a violation of natural laws according to some philosophers. But, regardless of the definition of a miracle, it doesn't have anything to do with the question at hand.  I'm supposing that the author intended it to be a criticism of a common creationist's arguement; however it could be better stated as "It is claimed by creationists . . . ."  I tend to prefer just the simple responce to the objection. --BrianG5 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. Your change you did is fine and makes sense given that thermodynamics rebuttal stuff by creationists has fairly well been dropped as an argument by them once they realised the earth is an open system. I guess someone pointed out the big shiny thing in the sky. Ttiotsw 08:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Entropy Section change (re: supernatural etc)

message: An addition of General References on Evolution might be reasonable for the Jr. Edition site for Evolution. Written for non-scientist. I was thinking in terms of books. Not articles like "Evolution of Umbra pygmaya in relationship to genomic transfers of the Lac estabar gene". But more like Dawkins: Climbing Mt. Improbable. The number should be limited so we need the best General Text out there. List them here if you would please. In addition, the site still needs much work, but it seems to have promise ... I guess. Feel free to contribute. More importantly, if it seems to be a consensus that it is pointless; give the editors heads up --- it would be a shame to waste this much time ... then get abused as being a stupid idea!--Random Replicator 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I like it. Of course I am biased, since I had already suggested it a couple of times before this attempt. And if physics has done it for 3 topics already, why can not biology not try this for one topic? I am also biased since I have edited a large number of Simple Wikipedia articles already and I think that it is something sorely needed. We have to serve the low end as well as the high end, and there are many more customers at the low end.--Filll 05:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys spend 10 pages debating the word theory and can't spare a line to suggest a few references? What up with that misters? --Random Replicator 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At least one of the Dawkins books sounds like a good addition for nonspecialists - Climbing Mount Improbable is a good overview, and - though it's rather long - I thought The Ancestor's Tale was quite good. Gould's Wonderful Life might have some conceptual issues, but it's very well-written and makes a seemingly obscure topic interesting to the casual reader. (No bias because it prominently discusses my namesake :) Including an introductory textbook (I don't know enough to recommend one) would also be useful. Opabinia regalis 01:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Jr. Edition 

message: One thing's for certain: it really is difficult to make the introduction informative, technically correct and readable.  Kudos to all who have tried.  Id like to propose the following re-wording to replace the introductory paragraph.  I have tried not to change the underlying concepts, just the language:
:In biology, evolution refers to changes in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. This is the result of genetic variations and their effect on the relative reproductive success of the organisms that carry them. Over time, the accumulation of many of these inherited changes can result in the development of new species from existing ones, a process called speciation. All living organisms on Earth are related to each other through descent from a common ancestor, as a result of cumulative evolutionary change over billions of years. Evolution, therefore, is responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species found in the fossil record.--Margareta 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'd combine the first two sentences, and smooth the text out a little, but it seems workable. It might be a little too simple, though:  It's a long article, what do you think of adding a couple more paragraphs after that to expand things out a little? As it is, we're probably far too short on the lead front for WP:LEAD anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 00:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In biology, evolution refers to changes in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation as a result of genetic variations and differing rates of reproductive success in the organisms that carry them. Over time, the accumulation of many of these inherited changes can result in the development of new species from existing ones, a process called speciation. All living organisms on Earth are related to each other through descent from a common ancestor, as a result of cumulative evolutionary change over billions of years. Evolution, therefore, is responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species found in the fossil record.--Margareta 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice start.  But the first sentence is long and confusing, and the last one is just long.  Also, genetic variations aren't always passed on because they "provid[e] advantages for the organism that increase their relative reproductive success."  They are passed on because the organisms that carry them have better reproductive success than others, regardless of that comparative success was caused by the trait itself.  Therefore I like my most recent variant of the original wording better.  And maybe see about breaking up the last sentence into two.--Margareta 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really applaud you guys. This is FANTASTIC!!!--Filll 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on the introduction 

message: Exclusion of the word "theory" is disinformation.
I have attempted to add this word, without mention of creationism, and people keep reverting to previous versions.
It is disingenuous and dishonest to exclude the word "theory". Wikipedia should try to keep as accurate a description as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparrows point (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it disengenuous and dishonest?  In any case, you are not just adding the word theory: You are changing the text to try and POV push that various things are only claims of a theory, not well-justified conclusions from extensive evidence. Adam Cuerden talk 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my gosh, not THIS again. I would be glad to discuss it with you. I would rely on the biologist experts here for decisions about where it is appropriate to include the word theory and where it is not. But everyone KNOWS it is a theory. It is one of the most famous theories in the history of science!!! You cannot read too much of the article without learning this, and this is a very sophisticated article, so most readers will know that already.--Filll 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so tired of watching these Christians fling their mythology into this article.  They have nothing valid to discuss so they bring out that old red herring "theory" of Evolution not really understanding what scientific theory is.  What that means to me that people who really haven't thought through the whole discussion, spout out some nonsense expecting reasonable and intelligent people to accept it.  Isn't there a section on mythology of creationism?  Can't they add to their hearts content there?  Oh, by the way, these vandals have the worst spelling and grammar skills ever.  Of course, maybe that's just the point!!!! OrangeMarlin 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This issue has been discussed at length. Frankly I doubt your willingness to learn because the top of this page contains no less than nine links to this precise topic. Read them and if you have new information continue with this section. However, if you reiterate objections which have already been dealt with previously then this section will also be archived. The page is not a debating forum - once the community has agreed upon something it will only change as a result of policy changes or new information. Without either of these further discussion simply wastes space. --Davril2020 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of the word "theory". 

message: Is back on given the recent spree of vandalism that is disrupting constructive editing on this article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Samsara. One of the Anons involved was responsible for a series of vandalisms, so I've requested that another admin block the IP as well. Doc  Tropics 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: - 1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view.   
- 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says   
- 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?   
-    
- I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.   
-    
- Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.   
-    
- You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."   
-    
- Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.   
-    
- :Sorry this is incorrect. Evolution has been observed in fruit flies in the laboratory. And I have included a reference in the text. It has also been observed in tilipia (the so-called "Jesus fish" which the symbol on the back of your car probably represents) in the field. And in the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria in the field. And in thousands of other cases. I am sure you are not interested, but it is possible to find thousands of publications on this of all kinds.--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution as a Religion