Talk:Evolution/Archive 16

message: Is this picture good for anything?  I'm sort of shaky on the exact details but I think some of you may know where I'm going with it.  Please fix anything with the image that may be wrong (including fixing the description, maybe cropping it, whatever).  --Cyde Weys 07:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click through to the description page.  Guettarda 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, but it sure looks angry... — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do altered isotopic signatures look like anyway?  --Plumbago 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, very interesting.  Salva 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I do think it's interesting; I just lack the knowledge to properly evaluate its value. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could, I dunno, seek some out?  :-P  Cyde Weys 05:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, but the mouth scares me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I squint my eye and tilt my head a little bit, it looks like my uncle Oscar. gunslotsofguns 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture? 

message: I've been observing both of these excellent articles for some time; I consider myself to be an intelligent layperson, and I know that evolution and natural selection are not the same thing, but it seems to me that the definitions of evolution and natural selection provided in the first paragraphs of the two articles are essentially the same: they both describe how the accumulation of favorable traits leads to biological diversity. Some revision perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.167.162 (talk • contribs) 
:Here are the first two paragraphs.
::In biology, evolution is a process by which novel heritable traits arise in populations and are passed from generation to generation; over time, those traits that help an organism reproduce in greater numbers than its peers gradually gain dominance in a population. Its occurrence over long stretches of time explains the origin of new species (speciation) and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. The phylogenetic tree on the right represents these relationships for the three major domains of life.
::The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.
:I have bolded the two elements of evolution.  Only the second part relates to natural selection.  The first part, how the novel traits arise, is not part of natural selection.  Does this make sense?  Armed with that information can you write it more clearly for the layman? David D. (Talk) 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Evolution = (Genetic) Variation+ Selection (including natural selection). David D. (Talk) 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hence the parentheses. You can do evolution in silico, for instance. Think of things like evolutionary algorithms. Kim Bruning 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, evolution by means of Natural selection is what you described, but evolution by means of drift, founder effect, geneflow etc does not fall intio that category. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I always saw those as exceptions that prove the rule.  Drift occurs on traits over which selection is neutral; founder effect is an edge or corner case by definition; geneflow is actually not strictly evolutionary per-se IMVVHO, but rather it's one of the factors leading to variation. Feel free to disagree if your view differs somewhat, YMMV. Kim Bruning 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, it is mind boggeling at tomes to get down to a definitoon that covers all those options.... Geneflow, drift etc can be evolutionary, just as natural selection does not has to result in evolutionary change when there is no inheritable variation. Drift can be really strong, and we use that concept all the time to estimate whether traits have evolved randomly, or that natural selection has played a role, by comparing the phylogenetic tree and the times that speciations occured, with the difference in the trait that we are interested in. If they have the same structure (e.i, time change equals trait change), drift is responsible, while if they do differ, natural selection is more likely to have played a role. As for founder effects, they are crucial for evolution, think about island species, in which large changes can be achieved just by having a non-random selection of the parent population. So, yes, you are right that they are edge or corner cases, but important for evolution none-the-less. Geneflow by itself is not evolutionary, but it can for example counter the effect of Natural selection because the genes that are selected against flow in from the side. Through that, it changes the pattern in the change, and through that, it changes the path of evolution in that population. Defining evolution in such a way that it covers all the possibilities is a difficult task, and even people like Fuytuma have not gotten to a very clearcut definition. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution vs Natural Selection Definitions

message: The spoken version of this page is over a year old.  Do we have anything in the pipeline for recording another spoken version?  --Cyde Weys 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken version is old 

message: Perhaps people here have already seen this, but if not this can help: 
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
:"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
You can find more here: . 
Hope this helps. Ran9876 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing about this statement is that, as written, most evolutionary biologists would tend to agree with it because "random mutation and natural selection" is a gross oversimplification of evolutionary theory, and even of "Darwinism". No evolutionary biologist believes that random mutation and natural selection alone can account for either speciation or the origin of higher-level taxa. For one thing it leaves out extinction, and mass extinctions in particular have been extremely important factors in generating the diversity of life. Any evolutionary biologist would be rightly skeptical of somebody who claimed that RM&NS was the entire answer... but note that this statement never quite says who is supposedly making such claims. MrDarwin 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't mass extinction fall under the general category of natural selection? - FlyingOrca 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way yes, but I think it would be better to point at gene flow, bottleneck, and drift as other potential evolution mechanisms. KimvdLinde 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Which makes what percentage? —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Old news - 500 people (with lots of engineers, physicists and all sorts of non-biologists) which DI has compiled over who knows how many years...who have apparently signed a very vaguely worded statement that "Darwinian" evolution should be "carefully examined" (a far cry from rejecting evolution).  As opposed to 7733 scientists who who signed a petition in support of "Darwinism"...in four days.  Pretty trivial stuff.  And, if there are 500 scientists questioning Darwinian evolution where are all the publications?  Guettarda 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but I dont see the relevance of these links. It just contains two sentences and a bunch of names, nothing more. However if there are links to the studies made by these scientists where they are examining evidence for evolution, I would like to see them. Also I would like to note that this should belong in the Darwinism page, since Darwinism and Evolution are not exactly the same.--Jonthecheet 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are not exactly the same but "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" is what evolution is mainly about as the article on Evolution itself explains. Ran9876 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: but how many [Steves] are on your list!? --146.244.137.156 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, nice link Joelito (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While their expertise in science/biology is noted, I strongly suggest that you find some of the studies that have been made by these same people about their examination of Darwinism. A single statement does not mean anything unless there are actions behind it.--Jonthecheet 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you spamming this page?  The same people read this part of the page as read the section higher up this page.  This list is trivial; it was trivial in February, it was trivial higher up this page, and it's trivial now.  Guettarda 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep things in one section, every response still applies, Project Steve, the vague wording of your precious statement and a hundred other problems. Please stop repeating the same things over and over. Repetition does not make something more true. JoshuaZ 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who don't know what Project Steve means, I suggest you check the page.--Jonthecheet 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm amazed Stephen Hawking joined Project Steve... I didn't know he was skeptical of evolution. But anyway... "Project Steve"? That takes creativity. Gerafin 01:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Hawking is not skeptical of evolution. Those who are involved in Project Steve agree to the following,.."Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools." As such, I don't know why you would think that someone who has joined project Steve would be skeptical of evolution. By Joining project Steve, Steven Hawking has clearly conveyed that he is not skeptical of evolution.--146.244.138.210 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad!!! That was just a misreading on my part. I feel much better now I have that cleared up. Gerafin 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, looking at the wording, who here wouldn't agree with the second sentence "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."? How odd that people consider that a sign of dissent from evolutionary theory. Skittle 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: the science show - Eugenie Scott talking to Robyn Williams (not Robin Williams) about project steve.--146.244.137.147 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See Teach the Controversy, like the Dissent from Darwinism list, also brought to you by the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yawn.  Did you even read the article?  --Plumbago 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your conclusions (that you call facts) are incorrect. WAS 4.250 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the fact that many of them have been observed? The emergence of nylon waste eating bacteria is information emerging, DNA is routinely made from base pairs in a cell or in a lab and speciesation has indeed been observed. A few minutes of scientific research would have told you all of this. In future check the talk.origins archive before repeating fallacies from creationist websites. Jefffire 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 500 high-level scientists are skeptical 

message: The following were suggested in the context of the "intelligent design in schools" debate. They may be useful here or in related articles:
http://millerandlevine.com/
http://www.natcenscied.org/
http://www.becominghuman.org/
Source: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=teaching_the_science&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss
Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not useful on this page. Perhaps the Teach the Controversy article? Jefffire 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I thought the site http://www.becominghuman.org/ was very good. The "documentary" part itself is clear and full of interesting pictures. While the activities are pretty simplistic, the amount of information you can access is fairly large. There are  also links to many different sites based on topics such has bipedalism and evolution. This site focuses very strongly on human evolution, development, and culture so I'm not sure how well it would fit in here, but I do believe it should be used somewhere on wikipedia.--Jonthecheet 07:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link suggestions 

message: How about some discussion on whether Dawkins' pic should be included? I'm strongly in favour, as I think he is arguably the most influential current writer of (popular yet scientific) books on evolutionary theory. However, I don't want to step on any toes by reverting Samsara's changes, so what does everyone else around here think? - FlyingOrca 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm weakly against the inclusion of the picture. I'm a bit fan of Dawkins but he is chiefly a populariser. I'd prefer pictures of people who are involved at the ground level instead. Jefffire 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Jefffire. I also have a concern that given Dawkins's strong views about tangentially related subjects, putting a picture of him here would reinforce in the popular mind the confusion between evolution and atheism/anti-religionism/scientism/whathaveyou. JoshuaZ 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur with Jefffire and JoshuaZ. KimvdLinde 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, I'm convinced. - FlyingOrca 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the picture since there are far more adequate and relevant pictures that may be added. Joelito (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a big fan of Dawkins but would oppose the pic purely on the basis that he isn't even mentioned in the article. josh (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with including him, but I think he should be called "popular evolution writer" or something to that effect, not "evolutionary biologist", as he was really never notable as an original scholar - he is merely a disseminator - if quite a successful one. And his picture should be in an appropriate section, something like "Public perception of evolution" - the "Social and religious controversies" section might be appropriate, as he's recently thrown himself into that arena. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness his papers are quoted quite heavily in my textbook of Behavioural Ecology. Jefffire 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We actually used to have that picture in the article, in the "history" section. I'm not sure why it was removed. -Silence 20:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins pic 

message: Please see this. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution doesn't care about Creation according to Genesis. Why try and drum up votes here? Jefffire 12:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: as you may have noticed, I just added a new section (problems with macroevolution).  sorry if it seems POV but the whole rest of the article seems somewhat POV in favor of evolution so I thought there should be a small area that didn't consider macroevolution a proven fact, which it isn't. Jedi of redwall 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See talk.origins. Jefffire 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is the evidence? There are testimonies but evidence is lacking. Joelito (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: At this point I'd like to remind everyone that cosmology/Big Bang theory is a different subject and has nothing to do with evolution : )  Gaviidae 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not a matter of faith anyway; evolution is science, and thus based on facts, experimental data, ect. Creationism is entirely a matter of faith, particularly as it contradicts directly with facts, experimental data, ect. Big difference. Titanium Dragon 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section 

message: I trust people agree with me that the hawthorn fly case is a very important example, among other things it addresses creationists who do not understand the relationship between micro-and macro-evolution, or who claim evolution is a theory and not a fact.  That said, i have mixed feelings about where i put the material.  It certainly is evidence, and as such belongs in that section.  But the first three subsections are abstract mechanisms or processes, not examples.  It seems to me that the two (process/mechanism versus example) should be presented at different levels of a hierarchy.  I am speaking ONLY of presentation and organization, not content.  Any ideas? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hawthorne fly 

message: Can we appropriate some of this into the appropriate section to make it a more effective teaching moment? 
Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real "teaching moments" in Wikipedia are on the Talk pages.  In all the discussion about Wikipedia versus whatever, the beauty (and ugliness) of the talk pages is ignored.  For my money, some of the best material for students is on the Talk pages-- the give and take, passion and reason, are all right there to be seen. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, my feeling is that if you clean it up for the article, you clean all the life out of it.  There's a reason kids are bored out of their skulls in school, and it is that textbooks are sanitized to the point of mind-numbing dullness.  Many of our articles share that dullness (encyclopedias aren't really supposed to sparkle).  But many of our Talk pages do sparkle (fitfully).  So why not have students study the Talk page along with the article?  What could be a better teaching tool? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I recommend whoever wants to take this and to transform it, to begin by copying what you wish to transform onto a subpage and opening it up to editing. I would help, but you have to begin it. WAS 4.250 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it matters, I think this page is definently helpful for teaching too, learned a little something about the law of entropy last archive :/. Homestarmy 01:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a more effective teaching moment

message: *Kin selection, inclusive fitness, W.D. Hamilton, parent-offspring conflict, parental investment, reciprocal altruism, Robert Trivers, r/K selection theory, George C. Williams, group selection unit of selection EPM 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added sociobiology, parental investment, reciprocal altruism & kin selection to the See also section as a simple(-minded?) solution.  Inclusive fitness, W.D. Hamilton, parent-offspring conflict, Robert Trivers & r/K selection theory could be put there as well, pending someone writing a summary with main article link for each. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a slightly related note, the list of "see also" articles could actually be trimmed a bit to remove things like teratogenesis, HeLa, niche construction, etc.  It's bloated a bit, and several of the items on the list above are better candidates than items already in "see also".  Otherwise, I agree with Fastfission and Davril2020 that the items are perhaps a bit specialist for this article.  --Plumbago 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should some of these topics be incorporated into the article?

message: Thanks for the feedback, which I've taken into account in the Mark II version below:
:Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology
:Though the modern synthesis is almost universally accepted within the scientific community, many people find aspects of it counterintuitive. While from a scientific viewpoint one of the great strengths of evolution by natural selection is that it has no need for a supernatural intelligence or any intelligent designer, people often find that it introduces concepts which go against their perception of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature, and so find difficult to accept. As Louis Menand has pointed out, "Darwin wanted to establish... that the species — including human beings — were created by, and evolve according to, processes that are entirely natural, chance-generated, and blind." (Menand 2001: 121) People can feel that such a theory robs life and the universe of any transcendental meaning. 
:In the resulting controversy publicity is given to arguments against evolution and natural selection which generally involve misunderstandings or misconceptions about evolution or about science in general. Some of the commoner most common arguments are examined in this section. More are considered at An Index to Creationist Claims.
Note that I've added back in the quote from Menand, which seems a pretty fair statement of Darwin's intent at the time of publication, though at inception his expressed aims were probably more deistic, and the commentary preceding the quote was off-topic. TalkOrigins may have a FAQ which would be worth linking in the last sentence, will think about that. ..dave souza, talk 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: revised as discussed below, TO link added ..dave souza, talk 04:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea...dave souza, talk 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Commoner" is not a word that works in that context I think, wouldn't it be more correct to be "more common"? Homestarmy 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta, Better? ..dave souza, talk 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a big improvement, Dave - thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, everyone. Will now incorporate this version. ...dave souza, talk 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark II

message: There is a small new unsourced article, Programmed evolution. Any ideas about this? I added a missing sources tag to it, and I have my gut feelings about it. Any reponse?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it, how would gaining resistance to antibiotics not be favorable, am I reading that wrong? :/ Homestarmy 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the argument is that it's not favorable for one specific organism to turn on mutagenesis in replication, since that organism will still die -- but, of course, it's favorable for any mutated progeny which survive.  bikeable (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My first thought was that it was an ID front, but instead it appears to say that mutagenesis can be switched on in response to environmental cues.  Doesn't sound crazy to me, but neither have I heard it discussed before, either.  It is unsourced, for sure.  I find very few (or none?) relevant hits on the phrase with google scholar or google web; virtually all of the are for programmed (past-terse verb) evolution, as in, "who programmed evolution?".  I would give it a couple days to cite, but after that I'd say it could go to AfD.  But perhaps I am missing something.  bikeable (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've only heard of this theory a little bit.  As far as I know, I think it has some valid points, but it's not entirely accepted by the biological community.  The point is that only mutagenesis is switched on - meaning that there is a higher likelihood of mutations (mistakes) during replication.  Like any mutation, it can turn out to help the organism, hinder the organism, or confer neither good nor bad.  The mutations are still random - it's just that there's a higher rate of them, and if there are more mutations, there are more combinations of traits.  This increases the likelihood that at least one of these combinations can, say, prove resistant to an antibiotic.  And it only takes one surviving bacterium to generate a colony.  I only aim to clarify what I know of this theory - I don't know whether it should be kept, deleted, altered, or whatever.  --TauNeutrino 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This sounds a lot like the neo-lamarkist's stuff to me.  This article is certainly on an encyclopedic topic.  It just needs some time to develop thats all.  Barnaby dawson 09:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you mean that cells that do bind to self-antigens or bind too strongly to self-antigens are induced to undergo apoptosis.  But otherwise I agree.  ^_^;  --TauNeutrino 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'll check my Janeway when I have access to it in a week, but as I recall, cells that don't bind to self-antigens at all also undergo apoptosis; cells that bind strongly undergo apoptosis; and only cells that weakly bind survive. I believe the the reasons were speculated that those that don't bind at all to self-antigens aren't likely to respond to foreign antigens in real life; they may be receptors for nothing; and of course those that bind too strongly must be eliminated so that the immune system doesn't respond to self. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmed evolution 

message: I'm aware that this section - and, indeed, the article in its entirity - has been the subject of significant wrangling and tit-for-tat. I don't wish to come and disturb the current consensus, but I have to register my objection to the amount of time spent in this article on objections to evolution. While I accept a degree of Americo-centricity is going to exist on this encyclopaedia due to such a large number of (very fine) American editors, I think the amount of time spent on these controversies is really pushing the envelope when it comes to creating an article that proportionately addresses each relevant issue. While creationism is a matter of considerable debate in America (and certain parts of Australia) it is virtually unheard of elsewhere in the developed world. I think that the three or four rather hefty paragraphs it has achieved here (under an even larger and tangentially related section on misconceptions about evolution) is really not warranted by an encyclopaedia that tries, to my knowledge, to present neutral, academic-minded information with a global perspective. I can't help but think that spending so much time on these paragraphs only serve to legitimise the crackpot ideas of religious extremists, not really further the interests of Wikipedia as a reputable and informative encyclopaedia. I propose shortening the section to perhaps around one medium-sized paragraph which explains that there are religious objections to evolutionary science, and linking it. I really can't see how it deserves more than that. After all, the article on the moon landings devotes only two sentences to the issue of conspiracy theories (though the article itself is a bit smaller), and I think it could be persusasively argued that these conspiracy theories are more-widespread and more in the public knowledge than an issue like creationism. I don't know where to go from here - a vote or whatever. But I certainly wont begin to edit the article until I have some feedback from other users. JF Mephisto 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, seeing as there has been no feedback in a week, I'll wait another 24 hours and then go ahead and make the changes to the page I talked about. Please say something if you wish for the section to stay at its current length or otherwise oppose my shortening it to one paragraph and linking to the creation-evolution controversy article. JF Mephisto 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Moved to bottom for visibility. I agree the controversies section is quite overblown - chop away, but expect resistance. Vsmith 13:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree.  Creationism is not just a US thing - it is HUGE in Latin America, at least in many parts of LA.  Be that as it may, the issue is relevance.  I think the misconceptions section is not about creationism, it is about science, and it conveys important information about science in general and evolution in particular.  If someone finds it boring they can skip the section.  Including this section certainly does not prevent us from having other sections exclusively on what scientists think about evolution, indeed, much of the article is just that.  The question in my mind is not should we cut the section on misconceptions, but, can we make the other sections even better? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't agree. The current section is actually not terribly US-centric -- only a very small part of it refers to the current controversies in the US. The rest of it refers to long-standing controversies which are well represented in the literature of many countries. Not all of the controversies listed in it are about the creationist-evolution controversy at all (i.e. the question of eugenics has nothing to do with that). I don't think having a few paragraphs which gesture towards some of the major philosophical, theological, and social controversies which have come from the theory (and have been prominent in both the US and in Europe, at the very least) is at all a problem, and I certainly don't think it is so long that it warrants being shortened to one paragraph. --Fastfission 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Mephisto, my first thought was that Wiki is not paper, but of course articles should be concise and to the point. The point is, this is an overview. From someone who's proud to be English (which I'm not) your idea that "creationism is.... virtually unheard of" outside America and certain parts of Australia seems oddly ill informed. I'm glad now never to have got a motor from V-Reg Vardy. You should have a look at The Root of All Evil?, now on internet video, or at least  this survey. People exposed to misinformation look at this page to find out more or, as the talk page shows, to try to refute evolution. Saying "this is science, no other discussion allowed" neither satisfies nor informs, and just leads to bleating about bias and NPOV. We should aim to cover all aspects in brief outline. Your North British chum, dave souza, talk 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of "controversies" section

message: Hi. I note that someone has requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal about this page. I was surprised it wasn't mentioned here, so I thought I'd let you folks know.  --William Pietri 07:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal assistance requested 

message: I changed a phrase in the section on misunderstandings.  The sentence read: In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture"...
The phrase "In plain English" is an idiomatic expression that is frequently used to indicate that the speaker is trying to get through to an ignorant or dense person.  Rather like saying "Now listen up, I'll try to make it simple for you."  At other times the phrase is used to indicate that a document has been drafted for readability by those with a limited command of technical vocabulary or of the English language.
I replaced "In plain English" with "When speaking casually," although "In casual speech" might work just as well.  
The only reason I'm bothering to explain this is that edits to the Evo pages seem to cause a few people to get rather worked up, though I doubt the drafters of that section will take umbrage.  Ande B 07:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Good call. thx1138 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In plain English

message: I'm not sure that this situation is really appropriate for mediation, but I invite all involved to take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21_Violations_of_WP:Civil_on_Talk:Evolution, where the issue is under discussion. Thanks. --Xyrael T 09:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation in progress 

message: Are the templates at the bottom really footers? Why do they need to be right at the bottom of the article.  The whole point of footers in a book is to have the material close at hand.  On the web this does not work as there is only one page.  It seems the 'footers' would be more appropriate in the See also section.  David D. (Talk) 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind they are indeed an extension of "See also", and are best at the foot of the page to make them easy to find and reduce clutter. It would therefore make good sense to make the other "See also" info into the last section, thus appearing immediately above the templates. This would bring "Notes" immediately under the article, which is appropriate. Footers in my limited experience are for date and page number in printed documents, and footnotes can appear at the foot of the page or, as here, at the end of the book / article. ..dave souza, talk 09:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Dave Souza's suggestion to move the See also further down the page.  That makes a lot better organizational sense as far as visual layout and the flow of the copy in the body of the article. As to Daycd's comment about "footers," I think he has mixed up the ideas of footers and foot notes.  The purpose of either footnotes and end notes in encyclopedias is to  provide additional informaton about referenced materials.   Whether this is provided page by page or at the end of all the text is primarily stylistic.  And this article is a single web page. Ande B. 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct i am not correctly distinguishing between these two things. I think that Dave souza's compromise sounds good since then at least the footers appear in the contents at the top of the page as 'see also'. As well as having these two related things together. David D. (Talk) 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we make Dave Souza's proposed change by the end of today unless some admin informs us that there is a contrary policy.  Ande B. 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like the change, references etc are part of the article, see also is additional stuff, context, so that should be at the end. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footers?

message: The book:
The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems by Fritjof Capra has a chapter on the story of evolution. Section headings include: Weaving the Bacterial Web, The Oxygen Crisis, The Nucleated Cell, Evolution of Plants and Animals, Conquering the Land, Caring for the Young, the Human Adventure. Dhammapal 05:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we already have a Timeline of evolution.  What are you suggesting, a History of life?  That's pretty ambitious... but, go for it, and be sure to summarize everything on the geologic time scale.--Pharos 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have such an article, essentially, at history of Earth, which mostly discusses the history of life. However, I see no reason not to expand upon that article until it's large enough to merit a daughter article specifically for the history of life in greater detail. Sounds like a superbly useful idea. -Silence 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed: Story of Evolution

message: In the Speciation section, I have added a weblink which I found to be helpful - in the context of its section.  I put it there because it adds to what is a woefully short section on what is becoming an exciting and rich subject matter of discovery. I hope it provides all of you with education and enjoyment.  BTW, I found that particular source while exploring the material at this link here.  Cheers. Astrobayes 06:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Link 

message: Yo - I hate the second paragraph. The modern theory of evolution isn't "based on" natural selection - selection explains adaptation, not evolution generally speaking. Can we tone that down some? Graft 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, Graft.  Natural selection is only one process which drives the direction of evolution.  As I stated above, evolution is the mere fact of descent with modification.Timothy Usher 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptation/selection 

message: I'm in dispute with someone who is trying to delete the Peppered moth evolution article and replace it with an article claiming that it is a hoax. Can anyone provide further infomation?
--Michael Johnson 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, now I see that you have already used that reference yourself. If he has forwarded it to the 'mediation cabal' they will deal with it. In addition, the person didn't say exactly why they thought the source was biased - if its a dispute about facts let him list why the source is inadequate, if its a dispute over the origin of the source then it's just an ad hominem attack. --Davril2020 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peppered moth evolution 

message: I'd like to add this link to the "external links" section of the page: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=science+evolution&page=2&so=0
There are extremely interesting scientific videos about recent events in the world of science from evolutionary perspective. Many 2-sided documentaries with evolutionists and creationists. Very interesting, for those who like to watch and listen, in addition to just reading articles. Plus it's free (In most cases).
Thank you.
:It would probably be better on the Creation evolution controversy page. Nowimnthing 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first page is even worse.  Hovind and interesting folk like that.  Almost nothing to do with evolution.  Mostly just the standard anti-evolution deceit.  Guettarda 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence, "almost nothing" (1/20 is "almost nothing"; 0/20 would be "nothing").  Guettarda 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need to put links to video searches for the same reason that we don't include links for Google searches. A link be highly relevant to the article and point to a single source, not search results. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Google search results are not a source of consistently reliable information, regardless of whether it's a video-search, an image-search, a text-search, etc. -Silence 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's nothing. Did you see the video that starts with "You know, people say evolution is not a bad philosophy. But at the same time, it was Hitler's religion during the Third Reich in Germany."? Hilarious. Most of these videos belong on a list of links on Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. -Silence 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a "google video" link of evolution science 

message: Hi, the edits (and this explanation) are unsigned because I couldn't get an account, because six other people from singapore have already gotten new accounts today. who would have thought? for now I am "singleton", and I'll likely be back with a username later.
"Gregor Mendel first proposed a gene-based theory of inheritance, discretizing the elements responsible for heritable traits into the fundamental units we now call genes, and laying out a mathematical framework for the segregation and inheritance of variants of a gene, which we now refer to as alleles."
"gene-based theory" - anachronism; he didn't know what the units were.
"fundamental units" - nucleotides are more fundamental.
"laying out a mathematical framework" - back to front; the laws were how he inferred the units (i.e., genes).
"variants of a gene, which we now refer to as alleles" - suggests that we call "genes" "alleles".
second para:
mostly just to get it to flow better and be a little more precise.
"largely faithfully maintained within organisms" - is copied just as faithfully within organisms as when organisms make gametes (between organisms).
third para:
"epigenetic modifications" are not necessarily "non-DNA based"; in fact, "epigenetic modifications" usually refer to modifications of chromatin (i.e., DNA and its packaging proteins (and possibly RNAs)) such as DNA methylation and histone methylation and acetylation that don't change the nucleotide sequence of genes, but do change their expression. the epigenetic modifications usually studied are directed by genes, not really by the environment or other stuff.
the last para doesn't belong in this section; it should be with linkage disequillibrium.
sorry about making the section longer.
singleton.
:Firstly, thanks for bringing this to talk and using a helpful edit summary. Things would be a lot easier if every editor did so. As for the changes themselves they appear good to me, but I will check them more thourally later. On a side note, the section on non-genetic inheritable (which was there before) look like it needs some references. Jefffire 13:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Heritability section 

message: Regarding WAS's deletion - I'm aware that balanced polymorphisms can exist, potentially, indefinitely. However, this is a minor case; probably few balanced polymorphisms last forever, either - maybe HLA polymorphisms, but I'm not even sure about those. And I think it's more critical to introduce the concept of fixation clearly. Graft 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretical simplifications should not only be identified as such but should also be properly sourced. I apologize for deleting rather than supplying a sourced comment on the issue, but this is not my field. WAS 4.250 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not aware of any example that counters my claim, so maybe it should just stand as is. Graft 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow what you just said. However if you will simply source your replacement for what I just deleted (again), I'm sure all will be fine. I'm not looking for a fight or an argument. I just love truth. By the way, thanks for helping to make this article great. WAS 4.250 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm merely saying that I think it's true that all polymorphism has a finite lifetime - I dont know of any examples of polymorphism that has lasted indefinitely, even for all mammals or all primates or something. As to a source, I dunno - take any text on diffusion. I doubt I'm going to be able to find a source saying exactly what I said, because it's not strictly true according to any model - obviously fixation is a stochastic process and so there is some finite probability of any arbitrarily long fixation time for any new mutation. But in real terms, variation, ultimately, gets fixed. I'm unclear on the value of obfuscation on this point - perhaps you'd like to clarify your qualms? Graft 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  check out [this] on mindblowing persistence of MHC heterozygosity. Rivulus is a self fertilising hermaphrodite - only vertebrate known.Sillygrin 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: have a look at Kimura's book "neutral theory of evolution" or one of the papers. polymorphism will be lost in finite time unless it as a fairy godmother maintaining it. I cannot remember, but he may even say it has a half life. nothing is perfect in this contingent world. the polymorphism doesn't have to be binary for one of the alleles to be fixed - i.e., go to homozygosity. Sillygrin 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If further mutation "reintroduces" it, that is a new allele that, coincidentally, is identical to the other. This is a separate matter; when variation is fixed, it is fixed, and final. New mutation events are new mutation events, period. If we could perfectly understand the evolutionary history of a site we would properly consider two separate novel but apparently identical mutations as having separate allele frequencies if they had seperate points of origin in time. As to whether "all variation is fixed" or not, all possible actual evidence supports this notion, since there is no example I know of of polymorphism that exists in all species, and it's somewhat absurd to imagine that there could be. I'll try some different language and see if you like it better. Graft 23:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrasing bothers me a little too.  While theoretically for any pair of competing alleles one must "win" eventually, the term "fixation" suggests that there are only two possible alternatives (allele A or allele B).  While I have no numbers, are such binary pairs the norm?  Doesn't fixation imply homozygosity?  Guettarda 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're pretty rare, if you're not considering private variants. I could maybe do the math on how many there should be tomorrow - even so, a particular allele must fix, even if it has to replace two other alleles to do so.  Graft 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Variation

message: I think we should give a specific example here of a claim made due to this misunderstanding of evolution. We could mention either the "why have monkeys stop evolving" statement or the "why doesn't everything evolve into a human" statement Nil Einne 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution itself answers all of these questions. If that doesn't satisfy you, then allow me - as a scientist - to point you in the right direction to explore your great questions; the answer is that quite simply the statements you mention are misunderstandings of the actual science.  In reality, monkeys have not stopped evolving, nor have numerous other species, _including humans_ :).  In fact, speciation has and continues to be observed, in both the animal and plant kingdoms.  It is very important that as this discussion on the specific content of the article proceeds, that the suggestions for changes be considered from the point of view of reading the entire article (because it is a very good article), and then keeping current on the latest research pertaining to the suggestion so that redundancies and fallacies can be avoided. I wish everyone luck on their quest and thirst for knowledge. Astrobayes 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this editor was proposing to include this objection as an example in the objections section to refute it, not because the editor thinks the objection has merit :/. Homestarmy 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the editor Nil Einne had written what you just did it would have made so much more sense. As such, the editor didn't and in the interest of education, I provided some useful links.  I would be all for including such a statement, but the chances for it being reverted would be pretty high if it didn't lean on peer-reviewed sources.  Perhaps Nil can suggest something more specific than the general ideas already mentioned in the statement above. Astrobayes 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nil did say that, unless someone has edited their comments since you replied :-\ Note their use of the word misunderstanding. Skittle 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution and devolution 

message: There is a dispute on antiscience concerning the matter of whether certain religious and conservative groups have traditionally been critical of science.  Since this article concerns related conflicts, perhaps some editors might be interested in helping break our deadlock. Al 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say they've typically been critical of "science" itself, I'd say they've been critical of science that contradicts their personal beliefs. This article seems kind of dubious; I've never heard the term "antiscience" before (unlike, say, anti-intellectualism), and it seems like a less neutral way to compose a page like "Criticism of science". -Silence 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific method is widely dismissed by New Agers and others who describe themselves as postmodern. Scientifically based medicine is denounced in the name of spiritual healing. Reason is discounted as one inadequate "way of knowing," among many. Guettarda 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. That statement is much more specific, and much more reasonable. Wouldn't stuff like that fit better as a section of the Anti-intellectualism article, though? The New Age approach, as you point out, is more "anti-rationalism/logic" than "anti-science", though the latter is a common result of the former. -Silence 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting.  The point of the quote I dug up was to answer Silence's question - that there appears to be a real movement by that name.  Over at Talk:Antiscience someone made the point that there are actually two movements by that name - one right wing and religion, the other left wing and largely academic in its origins.  That said, the article I quoted from rang true to me.  Religious fundamentalists can be annoying, but at least everyone is clear about their "Truth".  Someone who says that no knowledge is independent from its cultural context, that's fine too - it's useful try to take that into account (not that it's a valid criticism of the scientific method, just of its use, IMO, but again, I plead ignorance).  But the New Agers?  That just annoys me.  Science is an incomplete way of knowing, and their pet "way of knowing" (be it crystals or intelligent design) with no shred of evidence, should not only stand on equal footing with science, it's also correct.  And don't forget the conspiracy by "the Man".  BTW, Steve, can you recommend a starting point to cure my ignorance?  Guettarda 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my usual position of blithe ignorance it seems that the fundies and ID squad are not anti-science, their problem is that they have an undue reverence for science and want it altered to give validation to their religion to overcome any inadequacies in their faith or their ability to get others to share that faith without, dare we day, evidence. ...dave souza, talk 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiscience