Talk:Evolution/Archive 4

message: I know Evolution is already a Featured Article but I think we can do one better and get another evolutionary biology-related article up to Featured Article Status.  I have access to all research materials at the University of Maryland (including all notable biological journals), and more importantly, I have the desire to see this through and get it done.  I just don't have the subject matter down pat quite yet.  I was thinking maybe evolutionary developmental biology.  This is still in the planning stages though so I welcome any other suggestions.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to do that, I propose the natural selection article, which is probably much more trafficked (I'm inventing this usage of the word "trafficked" right now) and has more grist for the mill. Graft 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Agreed, how much trafficking it gets already is probably a good metric to decide on.  Anyone have any other suggestions?  This looks like a good choice to me.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 09:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get another featured article 

message: I have removed the link to purifying selection in front of the background selection line as I believe it to be erroneous. All kinds of selection remove deleterious alleles by definition. Purifying and stabilising selection are the same, as are positive and directional selection. - Samsara 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purifying selection is identical with balancing, not background selection 

message: This is a comment directed at user Marcosantezana. It's great to see you doing so much work on this section. After having a look at the revision history, I am wondering, why did you include the Siller article? The article is quite specific in scope, and in my personal view does not work well for general reading. - Samsara 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siller's article 

message: I'd like to question the rationale for including a picture of Stephen Jay Gould. There are theories in evolution that are more accepted than punctuated eqm, and there are minds that are more important and should follow more immediately after Darwin. These are Mendel, Alfred Russell Wallace, T.H. Huxley, Haldane, Wright, Fisher, Dhobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, Mayr. - Samsara 04:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was too close to bedtime...  Anyhow, yeah, I'm ok with Gould being replaced by someone whose scientific accomplishments are more significant and relevant. Alienus 05:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If anyone has a picture of him, R.A. Fisher is my favorite. I think I use Fisher's exact test every day. Graft 07:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: his picture's a bit grainier. --Rikurzhen 07:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: the pic of WD Hamilton is aweful. --Rikurzhen 07:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't be a problem finding a better one... there's a website  dedicated to him with some nice additional pictures. I also seem to remember that Alan Grafen's Biographical Memoir  of Hamilton had a nice pic that we could probably use. - Samsara 13:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could also edit out the orange in this one? Looks a bit glaring... - Samsara 13:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in this article: Stephen Jay Gould? 

message: Sorry for the "horizontal tranfer" so to speak of a deeply nested thread and the end of a subsection to here, but it seemed the thing to do.
On the table are two related issues: choice of the intro image and representation of "tree of life".
Subset(s) of the tree of life might be better or might be a good addition.
An "unrooted" tree of life is closer to the evidence (think communal pool of genes replacing an adam and eve bacteria).
Here is what the tree of life looks like at the twig level.
Life, like a river, is more a process than a thing and some things play a greater part in the process and some things playa lesser part. Viruses play a big part, mutate, evolve, have genes. So they can't survive without other life forms. Same with humans. Only plants are "life" because they can do it without the rest of the ecosystem? I guess plants that need insects to pollinate aren't alive any more than viruses.
Communities of life evolve. The division into parts is sometimes useful and sometimes not. WAS 4.250 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Conveniently, wikipedia has a section Life#Defining the concept of life. As for a subtree, I would recommend Drosophila, as it's very well studied and uncontroversial; the latter is probably rare to find. I also like the H5N1 example because it's topical and people won't care too much about the exact structure because it's very transient in any case. If they get it roughly right, it's a success. Maybe I'll have time to hunt a Drosophila example later. - Samsara 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend the vertebrate phylogeny, actually. It's pretty well-studied and much more familiar than Drosophila. Here is an accurate mammalian tree... it's pretty easy to duplicate this if someone wants to make a better one. Graft 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would need to be shrunk a bit. The link doesn't work in Firefox 1.0.7 btw, you just get a page telling you off for externally linking to it. - Samsara 11:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tree of life, viruses, continuation of earlier nested thread

message: many creationists use this arguments and i´ll tell why they are wrong and work.
#Evolution has never been observed. 
#Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 
#There are no transitional fossils. 
#The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. 
#Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved. 
#it have been, a fly were onces different races that could mate (still the same species) then 20 years later they couldn't mate, wich means they are different species.
#no it doesn't, that law only work on closed system, earth isnt, we get low entropy energy from the sun, and it is by life transformed into high entropy heat. Face it. life increase it as well. If it decrease the entropy by 20 it increase it as well with 21.
#the chance of all individuals becoming a foosil is so small, like in sweden the chance for one of us become a fossil is very small, its even small that anyone in the world today shall. So its logical that the arts in the middle get jumped, and if the differens is to small they fall in the same species as the one before or after.
#it did, if we put a bacteria in a ppol of water, where we have 2 places spitting out different chemicals they will evolve into 2 different specieses that live on each chemical spitter, wich im pretty sure have been shown. we have 2 different specieses from 1.
#it have been proved, this is acctualy one of the stupidiest arguments you can come with. A theory can be prown and still be called theory, einsteins theory of general relativity have been so proved as it can and is still called a theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.208.244.194 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 December 2005   (UTC)
Edited for formatting but not for anything else (including even capitalization).  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANti Anti Proof against evolution 

message: I noticed a good number of links that are missing in the "See also" section and I realized it was because they were already distributed throughout the article in the form of "Main article here".  It is my contention that all of the links should be at the bottom of the See also section anyway.  It didn't make sense that natural selection wasn't there.  I'm just trying to get consensus before I make this change.  Thanks for the advice.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way that Template:Main can be rewritten to effect this? - Samsara 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Huh?  I don't see how that's even remotely possible.   just creates italicized links to the main article.  It doesn't have anything to do with the See also section.  Heck, some pages that use  don't have See also sections anyways.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a new template could definitely be created that achieves this. There are other templates that manage to produce links within articles and in a separate section at the bottom, e.g. Template:Babel - Samsara 16:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "See also" be comprehensive? 

message: According to the BBC: Colin Norman, news editor of Science, said "[S]cientists tend to take for granted that evolution underpins modern biology [...] Evolution is not just something that scientists study as an esoteric enterprise. It has very important implications for public health and for our understanding of who we are" and Dr. Mike Ritchie, of the school of biology at the University of St Andrews, UK said "The big recent development in evolutionary biology has obviously been the improved resolution in our understanding of genetics. Where people have found a gene they think is involved in speciation, I can now go and look how it has evolved in 12 different species of fly, because we've got the genomes of all these species available on the web."  WAS 4.250 04:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or how about this one: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky. - Samsara 08:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have an article on Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution already, but let's try to keep clear of witty quotes.  You can quote Haldane till the cows come home but it won't improve the article and just attract some quote miners with their own. — Dunc|☺ 11:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the suggestion was to put them in the article... Not my suggestion, anyway! - Samsara 11:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: "Through a series of evolutionary analyses, the six internal genes of human H5N1 viruses were also found to have diverged generally into two distinguishable evolutionary groups." from Evolutionary characterization of the six internal genes of H5N1 human influenza A virus WAS 4.250 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: H5N1 and evolution

message: I know that the human chromosome is a result of the merger of chromosomes 2p and 2q in our simian ancestors, but I was unable to find anything discussing this on Wikipedia.  I'm posting this message here first as I want to make sure I'm not duplicating before I create an article on it and because it's related to evolution as it is very compelling evidence of our common descent with the apes.  Here's a good article with citations.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 15:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ape chromosomes and human chromosomes 

message: Justbob added the following paragraph to the evidence of "macroevolution" section:
 However, one needs to also understand that noone knows for sure if these new hawthorn flies
 just appered or maybe they were there all the time and noone ever descovered them until now
 so how would they know if they spontaneously emerged? Also we must take into consdieration
 the fact that these flies could have been brought with apple trees. Not only that, but the
 other thing we must keep in mind is the fact that adaptations do happen, but it was in there
 genes to start with that allows things to Adapt to there surroundings. Also if there is
 little evidence of interbreeding then that can not be rulled out as a possabillity.
I reverted his changes because they were poorly written, and frankly, I don't think they deserve to be rewritten in better English as these "objections" read like mindless creationist claptrap.  "Ohhh, they didn't evolve, they were always there, we just didn't find them until now!"  Yeah, uh-huh.  Keep non-scientific nonsense out of the article, please.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of his concerns are addressed by Evolvability. - Samsara 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A while back I saw two other editors have this interaction: some completely off the wall comment added to an article, then reverted with the comment "Original research is not allowed so please provide a source". It's polite, true, gets the job done, and sometimes they are actually right AND have a source! WAS 4.250 18:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite sure what you're implying here. The hawthorn story holds as originally written in the article. Don't go believing that scientists lack scepticism! It can be shown by DNA studies of the two races that they diverged as recently as the hypothesis of divergence post-apple-introduction requires. The explanation given in the article is the most parsimonious for the data. All further discussion should take good note of Occam's razor. - Samsara 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "Not quite sure what you're implying here." I am sorry for not being clear. Being terse to the point of cryptic is one of my many uncountable failings. My comment ONLY dealt with what to say in the "edit summary". WAS 4.250 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justbob's addition on Hawthorn flies 

message: Over at Talk:Charles_Darwin an editor has made some changes to remove all references to evolution as a theory and referring to natural selection a the theory and evolution as a proposition/observation. I reverted once, but I thought I'd solicit some opinions here. --JPotter 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some expert opinion 

message: I just want to clear up one last possible misunderstanding before I let things be on the coalescence issue. I put it here rather than the bottom of the page because I think the portal biology post should garner all the attention by being at the bottom of the page. So here goes...
Coalescence applies whether or not recombination happens, because, although different bits of genome (haplotype blocks) may have different ancestries, all current copies of one particular haplotype block will coalesce to a common ancestor, who may be more or less recent. These ancestors then again coalesce. Hence, everything eventually coalesces! - Samsara 00:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One last point about coalescence

message: Just realized the "not enough" fossils issue was removed from the misconceptions section. That is one of the major misconceptions I encounter with creationists (ie: Evolution requires lots of transitional species, that means there should be lots of transitional fossils); and it should be put back in some form. I realize other parts of the article mention fossilization is rare; but I think it could bare repeating as a direct response to this prevalent misconception. - RoyBoy 800 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The least we can do is link to the fossil record which elaborates on it; so me do. - RoyBoy 800 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossils 

message: Hey guys, I'm the current maintainer of Portal:Biology and since I figure I "hang" with you guys a lot, you could perhaps help me.  Just check out the portal and comment on things you think should be changed (or make the changes yourself).  I especially need some more "Did you knows".  Also, I'm currently in the process of taking over Portal:Science, so if you want to help me with that too I'd be grateful.  Note that I set the current Featured article on the science portal to evolution.  Just trying to get some exposure for us!  The Science Portal is important because it's linked from the top of the main page.  Not a bad spot, eh?  --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Portal Biology 

message: For the text:
"Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins; have been shown to assemble naturally."
Please can someone provide a reference, prefaerably a link to this research.
Thanks
Ajoiner 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Samsara 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You might have also noticed that it's already mentioned in the referenced origin of life article. - Samsara 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural assembly of Amino Acids 

message: Chronospecies is a current candidate on Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. If you would like to see this article improved  vote for it here. --Fenice 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week]]

message: I really think the second sentence; In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion."; is quite POV. To be fair, the rest of the section does go on the explain the meaning of a theory quite well, BUT:
I also would like to question the need even have this section on the gounds that throughout the text, evolution is consistently referred to as a theory. No-one denies that it is a theory and anyone who is unclear to the meaning of theory has access the article on theory.
It seems to me to just be an attempt to discredit the theory based solely on the fact that it is a theory. -- Qarnos 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line you refer to helps prevent countless editors from adding in its place "Evolution is just a theory, it has never been proved."  A fare trade, I'd say. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'd never thought about that. -- Qarnos 01:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This point was raised in relation to Charles Darwin and the link Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" provided on the talk page, which I thought worthwhile adding to that article. It takes a different approach in covering the same issue as Lenski's article linked here, and may be worth considering. ...dave souza 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Slrubenstein this section is vital - without it people get terribly confused. I've also been using it to explain the fact/theory distinction to anons who have been editing the 1st sentence of Charles Darwin to remove 'fact of evolution' (e.g. 82.36.166.26). Mikkerpikker 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't is true that every idea about the origin of life is a theory? I mean to say that unless someone creates a time machine, we are all left with just theory. Even though there is the debate that the Bible is the perfect and true word of God, there is no way we can tell. I say settle on theory for everything. Plausable theory is better than unprovable fact. Wwsames 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't is true that every idea about what happened prior to 6,000 years ago is a theory? I mean to say that unless someone creates a time machine, we are all left with just theory. Even though there is the debate that the Bible is the perfect and true word of God, there is no way we can tell. I say settle on theory for everything. Plausable theory is better than unprovable fact. WAS 4.250 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't is true that every idea about what happened yesterday is a theory? I mean to say that unless someone creates a time machine, we are all left with just theory. Even though there is the debate that statisticly it is more likely we are computer simulations than not, there is no way we can tell. I say settle on theory for everything. Plausable theory is better than unprovable fact. WAS 4.250 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like being mocked by someone who has the liberty of total anonymity.[ See personal attacks page] Wwsames 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinctions between theory and fact

message: The following edit has just been made:
:The idea that humans are "merely" animals, primates specifically, and are genetically very closely related to other primates, has been independently argued as repellent notions by generations of detractors.
(italics mine).
My feeling is that primates need only be mentioned once, but I hesitated to make the edit, since the change was made by a non-registered user and I did not want to discourage him/her by instantly reverting one of his/her changes. - Samsara 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-registered users are sub-human. Revert away. Graft 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they share 99.8% of our genetic material. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animals vs. primates

message: this is the britannica outline with some wording modified. this may be a starting point for working on the structure of this article. feel free to change things below and build the outline for this article starting with this template. --Rikurzhen 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're suggesting plagiarism on a massive scale?  Britannica isn't the end-all and be-all, by the way.  --Cyde Weys [u]  [t]  [c] 06:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously not, but the FAC removal mentioned Britannica as a standard against which to compare this article. in fact, i believe we have material that covers most of this outline already and merely need to find a good organization. --Rikurzhen 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  britannica 

message: People seem to have accepted the top level restructring, so I guess the next step is whether or not more restructuring is done. I propose candidates for restructuring the subsection "Science of evolution" be presented here or actually be done in the article (we can always revert). (Talking about it first is always good).
What we have now is:
    * 2.1 Science: fact and theory
    * 2.2 Who studies evolution?
    * 2.3 Ancestry of organisms
    * 2.4 History of life
    * 2.5 Basic mechanisms of evolution
    * 2.6 Adaptation
    * 2.7 Speciation and extinction
The britanica example/model provided above has its "science of evolution" section divided into these 3 parts:
*Process of evolution
*Species and speciation
*Molecular evolution
WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: restructuring even more?

message: also, maybe evowiki can help us. however, their license may not be compatible. --Rikurzhen 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  evowiki 

message: I've started with the reorg has pet above, the (v. rough) work it progress can be found at User:Mikkerpikker/Evolution Mikkerpikker 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: argh! Got a 'wikipedia white screen of death' (server down, foundation apologises) so lost a hell of a lot of it! (starting again!) Mikkerpikker 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, I'm off for a while & I'm not quite done w/ the reorganisation but the otline is now visible @ User:Mikkerpikker/Evolution. Please feel free to comment on it (here) or edit it (there).... Mikkerpikker 16:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation

message: If you can provide a source for the use of the term "Williams Revolution" in a reputable printed medium, I'd be grateful if you could cite it at Talk:Williams revolution. Three editors have been unable to confirm the existence of the term outside of wikipedia by fairly rigorous literature searches. You may also want to look at this summary. - Samsara 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard the term, though obviously the gene-centered theory of evolution is very important.  As for the summary - well, to me it says nothing more than a truism, which is that when a lot of people talk about stuff, language changes.  And we all know too that there is a vast difference between almost any specialized or professional language and popular language. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On a related note, recent work in evo-devo suggests a radical alternative to the gene-centered approach.  Does anyone know enough about these developments to add them to the article (my understanding is this: crucial moments in speciation occur not when a given gene is selected against, or a mutation is selected for, but rather when another gene that "switches on" a set of genes at important moments in embryonic development is selected for or against.  This accounts for the fact that different species share so many genes, and that what distinguishes different species is not just what genes are or are not present, but which genese that are present are or are not switched on.  Since the switching on affects the development of an organ or the organism as a whole, it is the organ or organism that is the center of selection, not the gene. Does anyone know this emerging literature?  I know only that it exists.  It is NOT however represented in the article's discussion of evolutionary development.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to respond. I come from a physics/computer_science point of view. Evolution and such is meaningful to me primarily as it relates to my transition from a creationist to an atheist. I have always found the gene centered approach to be equivalent to a subroutine centered approach. Something calls/executes the genes/subroutines. Meta-gene. Kernel. Isn't this obvious to everyone? WAS 4.250 21:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: With all due resepect, no, it is not obvious to everyone.  Indeed, as you yourself suggest, it is obvious to you because of your background in computers.  If it helps you, fine. Nevertheless, you are drawing an analogy and analogies help illustrate explanations, but are not explanations themselves.  What a gene is and its place in evolution is something evolutionary scientists continually study.  We should defer to their explanations of what is going on. (or, were you just making a joke?  If so, I am sorry to be so earnest) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it not generally understood this way?  Well, I think because it does not work this way.  The operation of genes does not mimic that of computer programs, nor are both genes and computer programs modeled on the same thing.  Strings of nucleotides (i.e. the composits of genes) are both templates for the production of polypeptides and regulate the production of polypeptides.  Polypeptides themselves form in an environment of complex interactions between polypeptides and nucleotides and are also influenced by random environmental conditions.  th result is the creation of enzymes that themselves interact in complex ways.  Our words like "code" and "reproduction" are metaphors that help us describe this process, but they should not be taken literally.  Put another way, although a given metaphor may be very useful in describing some elements of genetic and evolutionary processes, that metaphor may be useless or deceptive in understanding another process.  And we can come up for another metaphor to describe some other process usefully, but it too will be of limited value. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest way to reject this metaphor is to point out that there's just no analog for a kernel in biology. Genes are controlled by the interaction between DNA elements and the products of other genes - that is, "programs", in the above analogy. This is like no software environment that currenlty exists. There is no overarching system of control regulating everything. Graft 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for me, I shall study on this VERY interesting topic and get back to y'all later ... cheers. WAS 4.250 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I was unable to find "Williams revolution" in the book I mentioned (or any of the others I checked) so it seems wikipedia did coin the term. (Random commnet: I really like the term & think it may be a very useful neologism...) Mikkerpikker 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Williams revolution has been put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Williams_revolution).  See the extensive discussion in Talk:Williams_revolution.  The content of "Williams revolution" has been incorporated into Gene-centered view of evolution.-- MayerG 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Williams Revolution - coinage?

message: Here Stephen Jay Gould attacks Darwinian Fundamentalism.
Here Harold Kalant, Steven Pinker, and Werner Kalow respond followed by a reply by Stephen Jay Gould.
Here Merlin Donald, Steven Mithen respond the that followed by a reply by Howard Gardner. WAS 4.250 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A debate

message: <Comment on the following sentence in Evolution—In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.>
From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing, 1965; p. 367—Herbert Spencer's Opinion on Evolution to A Federation of the World: 
:The growth of planets out of nebulae; the formation of oceans and mountains on the earth; the metabolism of elements by plants, and of animal tissues by men; the development of the unification of sensations and memories into knowledge and thought, and of knowledge into science and philosophy; the development of families into clans and gentes and cities and states and alliances and the "federation of the world": here is the integration of matter,—the aggregation of separate items into masses and groups and wholes. Such integration of course involves a lessening of motion in the parts, as the growing power of the state lessens the freedom of the individual; but at the same time it gives to the parts an interdependence, a protective tissue of relationships, which constitute "coherence" and promote corporate survival.
Yesselman 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert Spencer on Evolution 

message: I object to the usage of the phrase "Macroevolution is microevolution over a longer period of time." in the Evolution article. Macroevolution distinguishes itself from microeovlution in several ways (all of which are covered in Stephen Jay Gould's book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory): macroevolution acts upon species, rather than populations or individuals as microevolution does.   Macroevolution therefore has a necessarily longer scope than does microevolution, and historical contingency plays a much bigger role in Macroevolution than it does in microevolution.  In addition, microevolutionary changes can oppose, support or be orthogonal to macroevolutionary (i.e. species-level) changes.
Jreilly4 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what we need to do is say "According to some, macroevolution is microevolution on a larger scale" because this is exactly what most textbooks say ... and then say "In his magnum opus, however, Stephen Jay Gould argued ..."  (Gould's argument - aimed indirectly at Richard Dawkins - is intriguing and while Gould is well-respected not everyone agrees with him). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase is almost certainly being used in a creation-evolution context (i.e. to underscore that microevolutionary changes sum up to macroevolutionary change; a position that creationists are often hostile to once the evidence for microevolution has been pointed out to them).  There's support for your view over at macroevolution, but it's quite a flawed article at the moment (not least because of its undue emphasis on creation-evolution).  I'm not certain that Gould's view on macroevolution is accepted in its entirety by the scientific community, but it's been a while since I was officially a biologist so I'm likely to be out of date.  Personally I'm happy with the "macro is micro" line, but I could be convinced otherwise.  You might want to help clean-up the macroevolution article first.  Cheers, --Plumbago 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quantity has a quality all its own. That's true for anything, including time. New phenomena manifest when the scale changes radically. WAS 4.250 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right.  But what is at stake in this debate is whetehr the mechanisms are fundamentally different.  Creationists claim that they are different; scientists generally claim that they are not.  Gould is a special case who is making a special claim, but he is not doing so to support the creationist cause but rather working within the evolutionary model. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Slrubenstein's suggestion that we say "According to some, macroevolution is [defined] as microevolution on a larger scale".  But I'd probably replace the "According to some" with a more anodyne "Commonly, ...".  I'd then expand the latter point along the lines ... "However, other scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above ...".  And I agree that care should be taken so that no one confuses Gould's ideas with support for creationism (which, ironically given his views, has happened before).  --Plumbago 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Plumbago, do you want to go ahead and make these changes? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Sorry for the delay.  --Plumbago 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Macroevolution 

message: If you would like to see the articles Frog and Pheromone improved, you can vote for them here. - Samsara contrib talk 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive: Frog and pheromone 

message: On the subject of this natural self-assembly theory, which does convincingly justify the theory of macro evolution. It is important that both sides of the argument, with reference to macro evolution are considered. So arguments both for and against it must be represented in order to avoid bias. Although this is a coherent theory, that makes sense and is no where near as outlandish or preposterously stupid as some creationists like to believe, it has not as of yet been proven to be 100% accurate. Macro evolution is only rightfully assumed part of the theory of evolution rather than a proven part like most good science is. Macro evolution can not be proven as life has not as of yet been created from dead matter, and until then it can only be assumed. Now that's important, as it will help take some of the controversy out of this creation-evolution argument as well as stating accurate fact which is one's responsibility as a good scientist. User : Pgtips19:29 (GMT), 23 January
:It's really annoying to be told by non-scientists what marks one's responsibility as a good scientist, especially when you're glaringly obviously unfamiliar with what good science actually is. Graft 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also annoying when people redefine things as other than they are - since when is macroevolution (whether you want to define it broadly, or narrowly) included abiogenesis?  Once again - read triticale - there is absolute, experimentally generated evidence for macroevolution - that was done in the 1800s.  Nuff said.  Guettarda 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? That's an artificial intelligently created hybrid. Have you got any real evidence? rossnixon 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that not real evidence?  You start with an observation (the speciation of wheat was brought about by hybridisation followed by polyploid doubling), carry out an experiment to test the mechanism, and end up with a new species.  How is that not evidence?  Polyploid doubling has been observed in nature, in response to known mechanisms.  Hypothesis (new species, wheat, originated through hybridisation and the production of unreduced gametes), based on known mechanism (various environmental cues can result in the formation of unreduced gametes), leads to novel predictions (any good theory makes novel predictions) that this can be done with other grasses.  Experiment is carried out, supports hypothesis that new species can originate through the mechanism.  Experiment (1) confirms that macroevolution is relatively trivial, if it can be duplicated in the lab, (2) shows that new species can originate using common, observable mechanisms (hybridisation and the formation of nonreduced gametes).  Thus, speciation (=macroevolution) can not only be inferred, it can be explained mechanistically (at least in plants) and can be duplicated in the lab.  Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you that clueless about what science and experimentation is all about?  Guettarda 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To cast this in other terms, almost all experiments require "artificial intelligent intervention" - that's what experimentation is all about.  You manipulate things.  That's the difference between hypothesis testing and observation.  Guettarda 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The term "macroevolution" was created by creationists, not scientists.  It's misleading and doesn't belong in an article about "evolution" itself.  If you want to put it in Creationism or a related article, fine.  Teflon Don 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source for this?  I came across the term in EB classes.  Guettarda 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I was mistaken, as I found out while searching Talk Origins.  The term was not created by creationists; rather, they misrepresent its significance.  Sorry.  Teflon Don 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless Macroevolution Rant 

message: The conflation of the "theory of evolution" with the process of evolution has been a way in which certain POV editors have attempted to insert anti-evolution POV into this article. That is not only POV but inaccurate. Phylogeny is "the study of the history of organismal lineages as they change through time". Conflation of the the term with evolution is again extremely inaccurate. Editors who edit science articles have a responsibility to learn the correct terminology.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Agree This article's tone has overly religous POV. "Theory of evolution" should be "process of evolution". Religious beliefs are of questionable encyclopedic value here. Jeff Carr 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In science, it is called the Theory of Evolution. --KimvdLinde 13:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, how is conflation of a term automatically attributed to religion? Couldn't you just simplify the term? Homestarmy 13:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV insertion

message: All of the above bickering aside, let's see what the WP:NPOV policy says:
:If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes  as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.' ...
:Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
I just wanted to put that on the table, since a lot of bitter creationists seem to go around citing NPOV as if they had really read it, but seem to miss some key aspects of it. --Fastfission 03:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ahhh, the glory of having Official Policy on one's side... Mikkerpikker ... 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's all part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (tm), don't you know? — Dunc|☺ 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't come across that before, classic! (Love their website... "We're out to get your children and pets...") Mikkerpikker ... 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, people who haven't bothered to read the NPOV policy should stop trying to appeal to it to support their side, especially when what they are clearly trying to do is add their POV. DreamGuy 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the minority view must be stated as such.  I have no problem if the anti-evolution view is stated to be supported by only a minority of the scientists in the community.  But the article does not even do that!!! BlueGoose 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1/2 of one percent is not a minority.  It's a fringe group. To call them a minority would be greatly inflating the perception of their size.  Pasado 03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and evolution/creationism

message: Just to let you know that Human genome has been voted Science Collaboration of the Week. - Samsara contrib talk 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Human genome]] is [[:Wikipedia:Science_collaboration_of_the_week|Science Collaboration of the Week]] 

message: I rephrased the first two sentences of this section, which originally implied that "the theory [of evolution] robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning". I do not believe that this is verifiable or objective; however it is of course a strength of the theory that it doesn't require any external influence/design etc. Leon... 10:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where the implication lies. Nevertheless, your edit seems to improve the flow of the text, which is never bad. -- Ec5618 10:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Misconceptions about modern evolutionary biology