Talk:Evolution/Archive 38

message: Here’s an article arguing that bird lungs are superior to mammal lungs   .  Well, evolution sometimes works that way.  It fashions a solution that is simply good enough.  And it does not backtrack later to fashion a perfect solution.  Here is another article about the respiratory system of birds  .  
A couple of weeks ago, Gnixon invited me to contribute to the article.  Thank you very much for the compliment, but I have not yet found the sweet spot.  My writing has been criticized for sounding too much like an essay.  Well, I don’t think the writing should be all that difficult to read (afterall, our concepts here are difficult enough!).  There is a sweet spot between formality and readability.  
And, I’m even more convinced that our article should be longer.  This is a major destination article.  This might well be our best chance to describe, to explain, to teach.  So, if you have found the sweet spot, or even if you feel you’re close,  please contribute.  I think we could easily use five straightforward examples of evolution working, a much longer history of life on earth, and a longer section on controversy, including claims on “irreducible complexity” about the hemoglobin molecule and bacteria flagellum.  When creationists talk about such things, they are really doing us a favor.  These are great examples we can discuss.  They are bringing up puzzles which do in fact pique people’s interests.  Let’s keep the discussion going.  I’m thinking about two paragraphs on each topic, even if there is another wiki article that discusses it at greater length, we just include a link (much longer for history of life on Earth).  Much too much of wiki is people simply linking together blue words.  That’s just the skeleton of the article!  We need people who will fill in with good description and explanation.  Please talk just like you would to an interested high school or college student.  And maybe toward the latter part of the article, allowing it to become more challenging, talk just like you would talking to a professional colleague who’s in a slightly different field and who’s sincerely interested, What’s the latest going on in evolutionary biology?  Go ahead and tell us.  I want a readable, teachable article.  I want to read stuff, be reminded of what I already know, and then go a little bit further.  For example, the part about Archaea, that’s a completely different taxonomy than what I grew up knowing (I graduated from high school in 1981).  I would very much like having this spelled out in plain English, and the implications.  I understand one thing that makes this early taxonomy so difficult is that bacteria swap DNA all the time.
I do appreciate everyone’s efforts.  I realize just how hard writing is.  I’m making suggestions the best I can, but do it your own way.  FriendlyRiverOtter 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is "guided" by natural selection and other activities, it attributes no human "value" to anything that happens.  I guess I find the word "superior" to be attribute a "value" to something that evolved for different reasons.  Birds have extraordinary metabolism (think about flying for 2500 miles when birds migrate), and their lungs evolved to provide oxygen to that metabolism.  Humans don't need that, and in fact, bird lungs would not provide enough oxygen for humans to have the massive brain that we do.  So, in that case, our lungs provide a superior advantage for humans over birds.  Orangemarlin 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Include Specific Examples in Plain English 

message: The evidence of Evolution section does not explain why similar traits among different organisms should preclude independent creation of each design by a single designer. It only shows that it is unlikely that they evolved independently. It also uses the "fact" of vestigal organs as proof of common descent, but it does not prove that they are vestigal. --Ezra Wax 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything that would preclude a single omnipotent designer's being the explanation for any phenomenon at all? Is there anything that that hypothesis couldn't in principle explain? Seriously? If not, the hypothesis can't be considered truly scientific. See falsifiability. Schmitty120 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article isn't about vestigial organs.  If you click on the link for each of the three items, you can read more about their vestigial nature.  Also the article Vestigial structure has excellent statements about vestigial organs.  However, through the study of morphology and developmental biology, we can illustrate development of various organs and other anatomical features from one organism to another.  For example, we can trace one muscle on a fish and how it now functions as the diaphragm of an air breathing mammal.  It's really outside of this article to list everything, that's what links are for.  As for the similar traits=a designer.  Well, that would take pages to discuss.  And evolution doesn't care about a designer.  The designer is natural selection, and it is unguided.  Anything else isn't science, and belongs in a religious discussion.  Orangemarlin 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not just "similar traits", which sometimes occur by convergent evolution, it is the same and similar genes.  What creationist rejects paternity tests based on shared genes, because, well no, the child may be an independent creation, that just happens to share half his genes with the alleged father.  Creationism is untestable, ID is poorly formulated, and perhaps true at some level, but a rather useless and unproductive without any evidence, especially when evolution is useful and productive, and evidently retained by the most scientific forumulations of ID to explain most variation and speciation. --Africangenesis 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darwin argued against "special [independent] creation" based on several things:  homology, vestigial traits, suboptimal design, biogeographic regions, species ranges, and my favorite, the naturally hierarchical grouping order of all living things.  From the first edition: "This tendency in the large groups to go on increasing in size and diverging in character, together with the almost inevitable contingency of much extinction, explains the arrangement of all the forms of life, in groups subordinate to groups...  This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation." ----- I know your question was about homology, but homology is only one of several lines of evidence that reject "special creation" of each species independently.  Note that Darwin never argued against the existence of a supreme being or creator, he only argued that species could not have been created individually, one-by-one. TxMCJ 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Evolution 

message: This is the best the article's looked in my experience of seeing it.  While going through and making a bunch of minor edits last night and today (mainly for clarity and accuracy), it was clear that somehow this article has undergone a massive improvement over the past few weeks.  Kudos to the editors, and now let's hope that for the most part, we have the wisdom to "leave good enough alone". :-) TxMCJ 17:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should nominate it for FA status once again!  You and Tim Vickers did a lot of "science" work on the article, it reads well (considering the number of editors), the POV edits from a certain POV editor have been reverted or toned down, and it includes everything but the academic categories or whatever it was called that Silence wants.  Orangemarlin 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  If nothing else, the article is testament to the possibility of achieving even temporary success and article quality, even in the most socially volatile subject areas, and even with an army of new editors, POV-pushers, and vandals coming and going all the time.  Vigilance, article custodianship, and strict adherence to scientific standards have paid off -- at least for the time being. TxMCJ 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback, but this is still work in progress. "Evidence of evolution" and "Evolutionary history of life" are still under-referenced for a FAC. I'm also intending to add a discussion of current areas of research in evolution, as outlined in the talk section above. TimVickers 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points taken -- I'm just complimenting the progress this article has made over the past month or so.  With all due respect to prior editors, it was really kind of a mess in early April. TxMCJ 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article looks great 

message: Traditionally shared or primitive characteristics and development in embryos have been pointed to as evidence for evolution.  We probably don't need this now, since it doesn't really add anything to the huge body of evidence, since we are so reductionist to gene and molecular level.  However, shouldn't this be included for historical purposes at least?  Even the evidence for common descent article barely mentions it.--Africangenesis 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos, I think the article on embryology could benefit from some development.  I am no expert and not competent to work on it, but perhaps some pf you active on this page can help improve that article.  We spend a lot of (constructive) time improving this article - but sometimes important linked articles are neglected ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I'm an idiot and can't read.  Do whatever you want, you do anyways.  Orangemarlin 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, if you consider this is a reversion, then I'm guilty.  If I change the name of section, because it wasn't clear what it was representing, then that's hardly a reason for your attack above.  Orangemarlin 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orangemarlin is a valuable editor, and I'm sure he didn't mean to backpedal on this.  In principle I agree with Silence's point, that "evidence" should be distributed within relevant sections... although for folks who truly need a quick-and-dirty education in Evolution, condensing all of it in one section can be helpful.  I can see it going either way.  Also, I have never been too fond of the word "evidence" in this context, because it sort of implies a kind of detective-guesswork thing, which science really isn't.  Scientists also rarely use the phrase "evidence of evolution" and are more apt to use phrases like "evolutionary patterns in:" genomes, homology, phylogenetics, the fossil record, whatever.  Anyway, both Silence and Orangemarlin have proven themselves to be valuable, objective, and non-POV editors, so it will be nice to see "everyone getting along" again soon (remember when you were all tapping your feet waiting for me to quit arguing with Gnixon?)  Peace, TxMCJ 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  developmental biology and homology? 

message: Is this an improvement or a step backwards? TimVickers 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section arrangement 

message: For such an important article, I think we should put this through another round of peer-review before submission as a FAC. I'll try to get some input from experts in the field as well, scientists working in this area tend to recognise the importance of communicating with the public. TimVickers 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution Peer-review 

message: The evidence of Evolution section does not explain why similar traits among different organisms should preclude independent creation of each design by a single designer. It only shows that it is unlikely that they evolved independently. It also uses the "fact" of vestigal organs as proof of common descent, but it does not prove that they are vestigal. --Ezra Wax 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything that would preclude a single omnipotent designer's being the explanation for any phenomenon at all? Is there anything that that hypothesis couldn't in principle explain? Seriously? If not, the hypothesis can't be considered truly scientific. See falsifiability. Schmitty120 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article isn't about vestigial organs.  If you click on the link for each of the three items, you can read more about their vestigial nature.  Also the article Vestigial structure has excellent statements about vestigial organs.  However, through the study of morphology and developmental biology, we can illustrate development of various organs and other anatomical features from one organism to another.  For example, we can trace one muscle on a fish and how it now functions as the diaphragm of an air breathing mammal.  It's really outside of this article to list everything, that's what links are for.  As for the similar traits=a designer.  Well, that would take pages to discuss.  And evolution doesn't care about a designer.  The designer is natural selection, and it is unguided.  Anything else isn't science, and belongs in a religious discussion.  Orangemarlin 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not just "similar traits", which sometimes occur by convergent evolution, it is the same and similar genes.  What creationist rejects paternity tests based on shared genes, because, well no, the child may be an independent creation, that just happens to share half his genes with the alleged father.  Creationism is untestable, ID is poorly formulated, and perhaps true at some level, but a rather useless and unproductive without any evidence, especially when evolution is useful and productive, and evidently retained by the most scientific forumulations of ID to explain most variation and speciation. --Africangenesis 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darwin argued against "special [independent] creation" based on several things:  homology, vestigial traits, suboptimal design, biogeographic regions, species ranges, and my favorite, the naturally hierarchical grouping order of all living things.  From the first edition: "This tendency in the large groups to go on increasing in size and diverging in character, together with the almost inevitable contingency of much extinction, explains the arrangement of all the forms of life, in groups subordinate to groups...  This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation." ----- I know your question was about homology, but homology is only one of several lines of evidence that reject "special creation" of each species independently.  Note that Darwin never argued against the existence of a supreme being or creator, he only argued that species could not have been created individually, one-by-one. TxMCJ 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Evolution 

message: This is the best the article's looked in my experience of seeing it.  While going through and making a bunch of minor edits last night and today (mainly for clarity and accuracy), it was clear that somehow this article has undergone a massive improvement over the past few weeks.  Kudos to the editors, and now let's hope that for the most part, we have the wisdom to "leave good enough alone". :-) TxMCJ 17:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should nominate it for FA status once again!  You and Tim Vickers did a lot of "science" work on the article, it reads well (considering the number of editors), the POV edits from a certain POV editor have been reverted or toned down, and it includes everything but the academic categories or whatever it was called that Silence wants.  Orangemarlin 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  If nothing else, the article is testament to the possibility of achieving even temporary success and article quality, even in the most socially volatile subject areas, and even with an army of new editors, POV-pushers, and vandals coming and going all the time.  Vigilance, article custodianship, and strict adherence to scientific standards have paid off -- at least for the time being. TxMCJ 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback, but this is still work in progress. "Evidence of evolution" and "Evolutionary history of life" are still under-referenced for a FAC. I'm also intending to add a discussion of current areas of research in evolution, as outlined in the talk section above. TimVickers 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points taken -- I'm just complimenting the progress this article has made over the past month or so.  With all due respect to prior editors, it was really kind of a mess in early April. TxMCJ 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article looks great 

message: Traditionally shared or primitive characteristics and development in embryos have been pointed to as evidence for evolution.  We probably don't need this now, since it doesn't really add anything to the huge body of evidence, since we are so reductionist to gene and molecular level.  However, shouldn't this be included for historical purposes at least?  Even the evidence for common descent article barely mentions it.--Africangenesis 08:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos, I think the article on embryology could benefit from some development.  I am no expert and not competent to work on it, but perhaps some pf you active on this page can help improve that article.  We spend a lot of (constructive) time improving this article - but sometimes important linked articles are neglected ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I'm an idiot and can't read.  Do whatever you want, you do anyways.  Orangemarlin 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, if you consider this is a reversion, then I'm guilty.  If I change the name of section, because it wasn't clear what it was representing, then that's hardly a reason for your attack above.  Orangemarlin 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orangemarlin is a valuable editor, and I'm sure he didn't mean to backpedal on this.  In principle I agree with Silence's point, that "evidence" should be distributed within relevant sections... although for folks who truly need a quick-and-dirty education in Evolution, condensing all of it in one section can be helpful.  I can see it going either way.  Also, I have never been too fond of the word "evidence" in this context, because it sort of implies a kind of detective-guesswork thing, which science really isn't.  Scientists also rarely use the phrase "evidence of evolution" and are more apt to use phrases like "evolutionary patterns in:" genomes, homology, phylogenetics, the fossil record, whatever.  Anyway, both Silence and Orangemarlin have proven themselves to be valuable, objective, and non-POV editors, so it will be nice to see "everyone getting along" again soon (remember when you were all tapping your feet waiting for me to quit arguing with Gnixon?)  Peace, TxMCJ 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  developmental biology and homology? 

message: Is this an improvement or a step backwards? TimVickers 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section arrangement 

message: For such an important article, I think we should put this through another round of peer-review before submission as a FAC. I'll try to get some input from experts in the field as well, scientists working in this area tend to recognise the importance of communicating with the public. TimVickers 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution Peer-review 

message: I have moved the ToC to the left and up a bit, to allow the text to flow around it. It looks fine with my browser (Netscape 8.1 rendered with Foxfire), but may not in some. I realise this is controversial, but anything that eliminates the large blank space to the right of the ToC has to help. Anyone with more wiki-markup skill than me is welcome to try a better solution. Esseh 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I reverted that. It looks really bad on small screens and low resolutions. Personally, I don't think the white space is that bad, the TOC in books usually has lots of white space around it! TimVickers 06:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, no problem. It was an experiment, and I was aware it might cause problems. Cheers, and good luck with the editing. As I said, no more tinkering on my part. Esseh 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: I hope this isn't too inappropriate of me to post on this talk page, but in this ars technica news post they talk about a small mutation in neuropsin of chimps created a longer splice variant found in humans, demonstrating how even small mutations can have  large effects. Thought it might be of interest for editors of this article, as it's a interesting example. Delta Tango • Talk 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's touched upon in the Genetic variation section, thanks for the comment. TimVickers 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small mutations make big changes? 

message: *Evolution of complexity
*Effects of random extinctions on evolutionary history.
It's getting close to finished. Maybe a few more days. TimVickers 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to add 

message: In the "Natural selection" section I've replaced the discussion of fitness in terms of traits with fitness in terms of phenotypes. A trait is too general a term to describe fitness with, the trait "fur colour" for example cannot be assessed for fitness. Instead, it is a phenotype such as "white fur colour" might have fitness implications. TimVickers 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing some more reading, I see the article in Wikipedia defines traits incorrectly. I have corrected my correction! TimVickers 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traits versus phenotypes 

message: As an experiment, I have removed half of the Lamarck discussion from the History section. I'm wondering if in-depth discussion of this minor and incorrect theory just confuses the reader and adds little to the article. Do people think this reads more clearly in this version or the previous version? TimVickers 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamarck 

message: Tom, I know you are well intentioned, but it is impossible to follow what you are doing,  your massive rearrangements make differencing of versions without going through your changes one by one difficult.  You should make rearrangements rarely, with clear identification, and with assurances that no deletions or additions were performed at the same time.  I also get a sense that, while adding references you are also stripping the article of coherance, as you apparently limit text to the narrowness of the particular citation, and the article is becoming a terse one to one sentence to citation correspondence.  I know that I wanted homeostasis in the article and you have stripped it twice.  The current status of the sentence is "Another possible advantage of gene duplication is that overlapping or redundant function in families of genes can allow retention of alleles that would otherwise have deleterious effects, thus increasing genetic diversity"  At one time, the in addition to mention of the role of homeostasis, there was the focus on how the gene can persist, until it might become advantageous.  Now the only result is genetic diversity, which as far as the article is concerned is some kind of dead end.  From the article the only benefit one might infer of genetic diversity is avoiding the problems of inbreeding.  I assume if one goes to the inbreeding article, one will find all sorts reasons to avoid it, that will apply to genetic diversity even in non-inbreeding circumstances.  I don't know if the article once had more on the role and benefits of genetic diversity, but it certainly doesn't now.  My concern is that you might be doing to the rest of the article, what I have noticed in the small part I've been following, that you may be making the article worse.  I'd rather have a good article than featured article status, if the latter means the article must be assembled from a recombination of memes, with one meme per cite.
I think the community is assuming you are acting in good faith, and waiting for the dust to settle, to read the article.  I just hope they can still remember some of the good things they might have lost (with the best of intentions), so that they can be restored to what may now be a better referenced and organized framework.  I'd like the article to have coherance and explanatory value, so that the understanding of the reader is increased, and so that their motivation to follow the wikilinks is because their interest is aroused, and not because they have become confused by a terse disconnected sentence.  With your flurry of activity what is the point of even looking at the article now, because its current state won't last very long.--Africangenesis 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Africangenesis, yes I can assure you that I am acting in good faith and am indeed working hard to get this article as accurate, clear and fully-referenced as possible. If you have any serious concerns about my motives, I'd suggest you bring this up at the Administrator noticeboard, so you can get a second opinion. The problem with the previous additions in this section was that homeostasis is not the focus of the surrounding text on gene and genome duplication. Addition of this un-introduced concept with no definition and just a link in the middle of a sentence dealing with gene duplication is very confusing for the reader. I would suggest either giving redundancy a separate paragraph, with homeostasis explained as a parallel example to gene duplication, or simply dealing with it in a separate sentence. However, this does depend on us being able to find reliable sources to support this statement. What source were you using for this addition? this looks applicable, but I can't access full-text at home. TimVickers 13:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that's from 2005, homeostasis isn't news.  I'll check my medical or biochemistry references.  I don't doubt your good faith, just the quality of what you're doing to the article.--Africangenesis 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here we go, "Biology" by Helena Curtis, copyright 1968, second edition pg 28  "Living things are homeostatic.  Homeostatic simply means "staying the same".  Perhaps the most familiar example of homeostasis is the remarkably constant body temperature we and other mammals are able to maintain despite temperature changes in the outside environment.  Although not all living things maintain a constant temperature, all are homeostatic in their chemical composition."  Later on, the Chapter 36, the title is "Homeostasis I: Excretion and Water Balance", has subsections such as "Ions and Osmotic Pressure", and "Acid-Base Balance".  The Homeostasis II chapter was on temperature.  Curtis also notes that better homeostasis, was probably one of the evolutonary advantages of multicellurity and larger body size.  Stress response systems, and immune systems can also be considered homeostatic mechanisms.  These mechanisms for maintaining internal state operate in a gene expression mileau.  Imagine a gene mutation that makes a gene function less well, or nonfunctional.  Perhaps it has a different effect now on acidity, or perhaps it destabilizes the genome.  Homeostatic mechanisms step in the make these survivable, or of course, perhaps they don't, but the point its that mutations are more survivable, and genetic diversity greater than they might otherwise be.--Africangenesis 16:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to interject, but Biology by Helena Curtis is still being used?  I believe that was my Biology text 30 effing years ago!!!!!  Orangemarlin 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was still going strong in the 80s, but I see no signs that it is currently being used.  My father-in-law was a biology professor, so I have benefitted from his hand-me-downs.--Africangenesis 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Physiologic or cellular homeostasis are not envolved in evolutionary processes (although they have evolved). The problem I see with the article is that mutations (of which duplications, indels and point mutations are the most abundant in genomes sequenced to date)is presented as the driving force behind evolution. That is mutationism and not neoDarwinism as hardened through the Modern synthesis. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution and mutations are fodder for natural selection to act on populations (population genetics), in fact phenotypic or ecological speciation can occur before reproductive isolation or genetic isolation. Epigenetic changes can dramatical influence allele expression such as imprinting were you essentially have one allele. Mutations such as the transposon that produces insecticide resistance in fruit flies can be 80-90,000 years old and only till natural selection the last 100 years has it produced evolution. Population genetics and modeling is the crux of modern evolutionary biology. I find even the mention of traits and genes is misleading. Where there are examples of a single gene and a single trait, I think the phenotype should be emphasized. Often the genetic change is not directly correlated with a trait but a phenotype (nor do you have to have a genetic change but an epigenetic change). Like in dogs- size correlates with IGF like molecules, Darwin's finches beaks correlate with calmodulin, lateral plates and jaw structure in sticklebacks with ectodysplasin, etc. The calmodulin and IGF examples influences a whole host of signalling molecules and developmental events that produces a phenotype. Even identical cloned bacteria produce phenotypes, so genetic mutation is not neccessary for variation. The article presents natural selection and genetic drift on almost equal footing, which is not neoDarwinism. This must be an attempt at NPOV so I would recommend the literature I have mentioned before by Jablonka, Price, West-eberhard, etc should also be mentioned as well as the literature on epigenetics I have brought up repeatedly in the past. Just a passing comment. The article has improved and perhaps the last of my comments are just an anal penchant of my own perspective. GetAgrippa 16:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeostatic processes are intimately involved, even in the examples you gave. Not every adjustment it took to make a larger dog work, was under the control of IGF signalling.  The mutation that increased IGF might have been fatal, if the temperature control system hadn't been able adjust to the new surface to volume ratio.  The bone may have been thicker or denser to handle the increased weight more due to the homestatic response of the bone to stress than due to IGF, etc.--Africangenesis 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Natural selection is the driving force behind adaptation, but evolution in general is driven by a combination of forces. This is discussed in the fourth paragraph of the "Natural selection" section and based on references 81-84. Thanks for pointing this out, this point really should be made clearer, but it is wrong to equate adaptation and evolution - one is a sub-set of the other. I've re-worded this paragraph to try to cover this point. TimVickers 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your comments. My emphasis was mainly on a historical perspective and what to emphasize. Mutations or epimutations don't generate evolution-natural selection, genetic drift, and HGT and hyridization produce shifts in gene allele (or epiallele) frequencies in a population. I think laypersons should realize that variation is not neccessarily the results of mutations but may be the result of stochastic and environmental interactions on gene expression or from recombination during reproduction. I think many will assume that mutations "cause" evolution, which is not accurate. Sometimes I don't communicate my points well. GetAgrippa 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got to say how refreshing it is to have a respectful and intelligent discussion on this talk age that actually addresses how to improve the article, rather than the usual creationist sniping. Thank you. TimVickers 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As to the comments on homeostasis, we don't need a reference explaining what homeostasis is, instead we need a reference linking homeostasis to the process of evolution, not as an outcome of evolution. Without a reference, it is WP:OR. TimVickers 17:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  simplification or a stripping of explanatory readability? 

message: Three near-completely valueless sentences seem to have been added to the end of the lead section. Do we really need to mention evo-devo in the lead? Do we need to mention speciation again? Does "Several areas of evolution remain areas of intensive research." even have any meaning? You might as well say "Several areas of biology remain areas of intensive research." Most readers will simply be confused by this, and even the ones who understand it will not be significantly benefited.
::We need to cover current research in the lead so that it is an adequate introduction to all of the article. If you think these sentences could be improved, please re-write them. TimVickers 04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See peer-review. TimVickers 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "This received little public attention;" TimVickers 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Reworded to "This lack of understanding of inheritance" TimVickers 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, feel free to add to the article. Your input would be appreciated. TimVickers 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead and history