Talk:Evolution/Archive 37

message: This Talk page is 392 kb, which would have been considered ridiculously huge some time back. I see that MiszaBot is set to archive topics older than 14 days. That sounds rather utopian. How about reducing it to 7 days?  And what if I do a one-time manual archive to get it down to 80 kb or so? EdJohnston 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks.  14 days seemed to be working until recently.  Gnixon 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did the manual archive, and this page is now down to a slim, trim 163 kb. Unfortunately, to see the beginnings of some current conversations you might have to refer back to Talk:Evolution/Archive 35. The expiry time on MiszaBot is now down to 7 days so perhaps MiszaBot will be able to keep up better than before. EdJohnston 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual archive, to get caught up? 

message: "Heritable" was the term used in the lead for a very long name; it was changed to "inherited" purely for the sake of trying to avoid throwing any remotely opaque terminology at readers so early in the article. Most editors seemed to agree that "inherited" was an adequate replacement, and that it was much more accessible to new readers and thus a much better term for the purpose of drawing readers into the article. Is there any compelling reason why inherited is unacceptable?
::I tend to use "heritable" more, because "heritable" is a strictly descriptive adjective while "inherited" is a verb-adjective and for that reason, not as informative about the property of heritability.  I think the use of "heritable" is also a good habit to get into, to immediately distinguish heritable traits from acquired ones.  Dig this:  coming flat out and saying "a heritable trait" immediately excludes the non-heritable ones (i.e. acquired traits), whereas saying "inherited traits" merely excludes traits that were not inherited, whether they are heritable or not.  Thus I feel there is more information conveyed by the word "heritable".  Heritable is a QUALITATIVE adjective, while "inherited" is a CONDITIONAL/HISTORICAL one.  Speaking of an "inherited trait" does not immediately or necessarily make any logical exclusion of non-HERTIABLE traits... it only excludes the non-INHERITED traits, thus leaving open the possibility that perhaps acquired traits are heritable.  See what I mean?  But I will agree to use inherited rather than heritable if people prefer... although there is an important yet subtle distinction, mainly tied to the exclusion of acquired traits. TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To aid those new to the term, how about changing the first mention to "Evolution occurs when differences which can be inherited become more common or more rare in a population", then wikilinking the following heritable (note it's a redirect to Heritability)  for those still puzzled or wanting more info. ... dave souza, talk 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is well-made, TxMCJ, but I still feel that such a subtle distinction isn't worth the ambiguity the word will generate. Dave's suggestion seems reasonable. If it's really necessary to mention the word "heritable" in the lead section, we should at least avoid it in the very first sentence in order to make that sentence as clear and accessible as possible. (Alternatively, if others agree with avoiding the word in the lead section, introduce heritable in the "Heredity" section, then continue with it subsequently.) -Silence 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allright, fine by me... I like Dave souza's advice about the "first mention", though. TxMCJ 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because while populations evolve, so do whole species.  Evolution can be characterized on both the population level and the species level.  Also, the interbreeding criterion of species concepts only applies to sexually-reproducing organisms.  Many organisms are asexual (yet still regarded as "species"), and thus population dynamics (and things like interbreeding) really play no role in asexual organisms. Also, I am continually troubled at how to present the idea of species in this article (and perhaps even the species article itself), since arriving at a useful definition of "species" that applies to all organisms has always eluded biologists.  I'd like to get into that point here, but realize it will probably confuse most readers. TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about distinctions between "species" and "varieties" being elusive is is very important, and was emphasised by Darwin repeatedly – see below for a related suggestion. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely... and "varieties" and "species" are still elusive (I mention some of this when talking about species, below.)  Mainly I added "species" to the sentence, because evolution is not strictly changes within populations.  Most of these little points we are debating stem from edits I made to be accurate, and while I won't argue for their necessary inclusion, some other solution will have to be implemented that makes all statements as accurate as possible. :-)  TxMCJ 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And are the population and species levels the only levels at which evolution can be characterized? By concern with trying to be too all-encompassing with evolution's applicability is that (1) it makes the first sentence unnecessarily long, and (2) it leaves the door open to the insertion of trivial exceptions. Anything remotely trivial or non-essential should be saved for later in the article. However, with that in mind, if noting "population or species" improves clarity and accuracy, I don't have a big problem with it. I'm just encouraging caution with any expansion of the early article. -Silence 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are other levels than populations or species to consider. Single individuals don't evolve, populations and species do, and while multispecies "communities" or relationships between species might evolve (e.g. via coevolution), that is sort of a higher level that is not immediately implied by "evolution".  I dunno -- address this as you see fit.  If you're OK with that edit, Silence, perhaps we'll just keep it, and all be cautious about unnecessary expansion... TxMCJ 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All right.  I have no issues with this opinion!  Make the changes if you think it will improve the writing.  Although some distinction of heritable vs. acquired traits must be made (if it's not there already, somewhere other than in the section about Lamarck).  :-) TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if we devote a few sentences to clarifying that distinction at the very beginning of the "Heredity" section? Seems like the perfect place to explain the issue. -Silence 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reason I added alleles and independent assortment (with hyperlinks by the way, so readers COULD follow them...) was because in the previous version of this section, mutation seemed to be presented as the only source of variation.  Mutation is not the only source of variation.  If you leave mutation in there, you have to leave in mention of allele differences and independent assortment as additional sources of variation.  If you want to talk about differences (variation) alone, then you will have to remove mutation, so we don't give the impression that mutation is the only source of variation. TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyperlinks don't justify leaving terms undefined; every Wikipedia article is expected and required to be able to function as a stand-alone article; visiting other articles should be purely supplementary, not essential for understanding the topic in question. This is especially important for the many planned print versions of Wikipedia, which evolution will almost certainly be included in. I think leaving in mutation while leaving out those other topics is fine as long as we are clear (and I think we are, or at least clear enough) in saying that mutation is an example of how variation is produced, not the only way it's produced. Hence "Mutations and other random changes in these genes". -Silence 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of see your point, although technically, a mutation is an actual *change* in a gene, while differences due to alleles and assortment do not reflect actual *changes*, just aspects of variation itself.  I just think we can do better than, "Mutations and other random changes". TxMCJ 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you prefer.  I just mainly thought it was better to mention selection first because of the Darwinian precedent, but either way I suppose is fine. TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, well... Let me think how to make this less awkward.  The previous version did not clarify that species is a bifurcating process where an ancestor splits into two descendants.  It seemed more that it just said, "new species can appear", which is vague and can puzzle both creationists and biology students like.  Also, a common misconception about speciation is that one of the daughter species is somehow the "original" species, while the other is the "new" one.  Thus making a distinction between the ancestral species and the two descendant species is important if we want to get across that sister species have equal status with regard to the ancestor.  Thus, "species diverge and become separate species" still seems a bit vague to me, and I think we can do better.  How about:  "As differences in and between populations accumulate, an ancestral species can diverge into two separate descendant species" -- or something like that.  Please suggest some other wording or sentence structure that does not make it sound like species just "bud off" the existing lineage, and that makes a distinction between the ancestor and the descendants.  Thanks, TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right to me. Adapting the existing phrase in the light of my comment about varieties above, how about something along the lines of "As differences in and between populations accumulate, distinct varieties can develop  and when varieties are distinct enough to be described as a new species, speciation has occurred and so an ancestral species has diverged into two new ones." .... dave souza, talk 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just "species diverge into separate species"? I realize it's vague, but we can't explicate everything in the lead section, and I'm already a little concerned about whether we're excluding anagenetic speciations in favor of pure cladogenesis. Ah, here's another idea: rather than getting into "ancestor species" and "descendant species" (terms which, as you note above, have a bit of baggage that we'll need to explain away first), how about just "species diverge into separate new species"? Adding "new" will emphasize that neither one of the separated species is identical to the ancestor species. I don't like Dave Souza's version for the lead because it's too long and in-depth, though it might be useful somewhere ni the article body. -Silence 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, not bad, not bad.  I think my caution here has to do with my wonder whether most readers understand "divergence" as a process that takes place over time, between ancestors and descendants.  "Species diverge into separate species" just seems a little vague to me, but I won't harp on this.  It would be a lot easier if we were talking about bread dough or something: "Bread dough is divided into two separate loaves".  Obviously I am not arguing for inclusion of this metaphor, but it's a very good one because it parallels the fact that neither of the loaves is the "original" dough... or else, they both are.  Anyway, edit as you see fit. TxMCJ 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All right -- my only reason for that edit was due to the pre-existing version of that section that made it out like Darwin's "The Origin" was the first presentation of evolution and natural selection, when in fact, the joint paper with Wallace preceded "The Origin" by several months (including a New Years' celebration!)  I was just trying to be accurate -- remove mention in the lead if you'd like. TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I only removed it because its meaning or purpose wasn't clear to me.  In the future I will ask first, but I'm still not sure of the meaning or purpose of that sentence, and I think about this stuff every day, all day long.  Is this merely a statement giving an example of homology?  Or, if it is meant to contrast Darwinian/preDarwinian biology with modern biology, then what is the distinction between the two... the fact that we use molecular data today too as well as morphology, or something?  Sorry for being so dense, but I really don't "get" this statement as written, or what point it is trying to communicate.  Please explain, thanks. :-) TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK.  I won't argue against the fact that evolution takes *forever* (not literally), although divergence events certainly *do not* always require "millennia" (but I agree that most divergence events probably require at least several millennia)... but nonetheless, I think you may be right that the distinction between gradualism and punc. eq. is more appropriate when considering phylogeny (although I always teach these two concepts in the context of "evolutionary rates"...) Revert to "gradual" if you prefer, and I'll get back to you if it still bugs me.  TxMCJ 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Just check out our gradualism article, which points out that punctuated equilibrium is entirely gradualistic. Moreover, all that really matters here is that we take the time to briefly explain to our readers (most of whom won't even know what "gradualism" is) that evolution is an extremely slow process, by human standards; fish don't suddenly turn into squirrels out of the blue. More subtle distinctions of evolutionary rates can be addressed later in the article, but for the lead "gradual" suffices. -Silence 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on recent changes 

message: Jeez, I'm gone for one day and now this?  Here's the Talk history, see around 17:30, 17 April.  Here's the Article history, see around 17:40, 17 April.  
TxMCJ has succeeded in chasing me away permanently, but I'd like to offer one last piece of advice:  think hard about what's the most efficient response to the objections from creationists that pop up here so often.  So long, and thanks for all the fish.  Gnixon 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace

message: Now that the edit wars have cooled, and a few of the POV-pushing editors have either been banned, blocked, or are taking a vacation, can we get back to what we are trying to do, that is, get this article to an FA status.  There are kilobytes of discussion above, a lot of it not so much fun to read, but I think we're somewhere at getting this article cleaned up and reorganized.  Can some please post an outline or something of what is still required?  It almost feels like this article should be reverted back a few weeks, and we start once again, but that might be the worst choice.  Orangemarlin 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to editing 

message: I have mentioned this article before because the intro does a good job of describing issues of the Modern Synthesis and issues of molecular evolution:Nei M. Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution.Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Dec;22(12):2318-42. Epub 2005 Aug 24. Erratum in: Mol Biol Evol. 2006 May;23(5):1095. I know you can't cover everything but some mention of Morgan and Kimura would be nice. It is an opportunity to put mutation, neutral molecular evolution, natural selection, and population genetics into a relational perspective. Yeah, I know, too detailed. I applaud the cooperative effort and excellent discussions generated by the editors. GetAgrippa 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to History?? 

message: A bit of an off-topic note... today is Clarence Darrow's birthday.  He was the defending attorney at the Scopes Monkey Trial.  The script of the play and film Inherit the Wind uses actual trial transcripts in the courtroom scenes, oftentimes using the exact words that were spoken by Darrow and Bryan (although the play and film both take some creative liberties as well). Spencer Tracy pulled off a remarkable portrayal of Darrow in the first version of the film.  Clarence Darrow was a true intellectual whose courtroom arguments in defense of Scopes were powerful and sound.  This is a fascinating chapter of American History and I encourage you to have a look at it if you're interested.  Thanks, TxMCJ 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, for future notice stuff like this and the "Moment of silence for Kurt Vonnegut" and the like would probably be better-placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. This talk page is solely for discussing the Evolution article, not for notifications of any kind that might be of interest to evolution-involved editors. -Silence 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem -- thanks for the advice.  Will crosspost and keep this kind of thing off this page in the future.  Although a mention of the Scopes trial (or at least a link to it) might fit in the article somewhere (although admittedly that wasn't my point in posting this...) Thanks, TxMCJ 19:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps under "social effect", if we decide to expand our coverage of creationism (which I'd been considering, to address things like intelligent design). Probably not, though, since isolated incidents like the Scopes trial aren't very enlightening outside of their historical context, and providing the context alone will probably take up a lot of space. -Silence 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of monkeys, maybe chimps is a bit off topic, but Chimps More Evolved Than Humans struck me as interesting, describing the effect of genetic drift in small populations. .. dave souza, talk 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is also a hypothesis or some evidence that all living chimps are descended from a Founder effect of resistance to a HIV-like virus as I recollect reading. GetAgrippa 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm. Well, from that crappy summary, I garner that it's not talking about drift but about positive selection. I can't find the actual paper on the PNAS website - anyone got a link? Graft | talk 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find the PNAS article either, but did find other related articles. It must be an early release for online PNAS subscribers only. Weird?GetAgrippa 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Birthday [[Clarence Darrow]] 

message: Just in case you skip the main page and head right over to fight the Evolution-Creation wars.  I'm watching the article, just to see what creative vandalism is employed.  Not much interesting so far.  Orangemarlin 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OOOOOoooops.  Just noticed the warning in the previous conversation.  Sorry.  Orangemarlin 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, this is at least much more directly relevant to the Evolution article, considering the immense importance of the Charles Darwin article to this one. We should expect some more activity around this article in the near future, as a side-effect of the greatly increased activity at that article; with that in mind, it may be sensible to un-semiprotect this article, for the same reason that FAs are unprotected when they appear on the main page: we'll get a lot of new users here who may be lured into becoming future Wikipedia editors if given a chance to experiment a little. I think the long-term benefits of that outweigh any short-term vandalism concerns. -Silence 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Charles Darwin]] made FA today 

message: Perhaps "Article milestones" at the top could contain a link or two to the prefered version(s) of longtime editors of this article that feel it has gotten worse or that there is something special to recommend that previous version. WAS 4.250 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article's ever been consistently high-quality enough for there to be much of a point in isolating a version for general quality. On the other hand, we might isolate versions that have high quality in specific areas (e.g., a certain layout, certain well-done sections, certain images, and other things that might have subsequently deteriorated), which we can use to improve the current section. Although I don't think the article, taken as a whole, has ever been a lot better than it is today (and if it is, that's only because the current article layout and contents are in a transitional period following a major restructuring and reprioritization), I do think there are many aspects of the article that were better at various times. -Silence 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article milestones 

message: How did organisms go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhydd Meddwl (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should know better than this, Rhydd Meddwl!;) Please add new comments to the end of the page!  Now, this isn't a big problem at all: there are clear evolutionary advantages to sexual reproduction.  For its origins, see here. garik 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In eukaryotes it's generally the other way around -- asexual lineages are well-rooted within sexual lineages, and tend to be less diverse TxMCJ 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What the...? This is a HUGE problem. Even the page you linked to says, first off, "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology." Graft | talk 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK, I did overstate that rather; you're quite right – I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote it.  On the other hand, I'm not convinced that that first line doesn't overstate its case somewhat too.  The difficulty of testing hypotheses makes research into the origin of sexual reproduction very hard, but it's certainly not a major puzzle in the sense that no one has any idea how it might have happened.  And it's also not a problem at all for evolutionary biology, in the sense creationists sometimes claim (i.e. they can't see how sex could have originated, so it must have been through design etc.).  But yes, there are of course also clear advantages to asexual reproduction. garik 23:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asexual to sexual 

message: A creationist, the other day, put the following to me: supposed declining health and lifespans (yes, from an analysis of the Bible) are due to the iterative passing on of mutations throughout the last 6,000 years (again Bible study).  In other words, natural selection, rather than contributing the spread of advantageous mutations, has not succeeded in filtering out deleterious ones.
Now, I don't buy this, for both factual and theoretical reasons.  But it got me thinking: the force of natural selection, for it to work, has to be stronger than whatever forces of mutation (by whatever means).  (*Speculation*: Which, from what I gather from thinking about it, means that there would be a naturally selected "ideal" rate of mutation (by means of DNA repair mechanisms etc.).)
My question is: am I thinking about this wrongly, and if not, is there literature on this already?  Jameshfisher 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed there is, organisms have even evolved variable mutation rates. link and link TimVickers 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural selection of rate of mutation? 

message: Evolution is a Theory but in this article it is discribed as fact, this needs to be rectified, also things such as Ireducible complexity (bacterial flagellum motor etc.) that provide hurdles for evolution theory should be included into the article...
124.181.46.194 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you are misunderstanding what the term theory means in science. Theory does not mean guess but rather a well-tested hypothesis with broad explanatory power. Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is. Second of all, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that evolution occured and that claims such as Behe's regarding the bacterial flagellum have no basis. As such , Wikipedia's undue weight clause of the neutrality policy comes into play. JoshuaZ 01:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a better man than I Joshua.  This BS is getting really old, and I've been doing serious editing for only 4 or 5 months on these articles.  I think I'm just reading to tell them to all screw off.  Orangemarlin 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the Evolution FAQ--70.124.85.24 11:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I start to wonder if people are being difficult on purpose, or if they do not know how to read, or just like to parrot nonsense some preacher spewed from the pulpit and repeat it in a brainless fashion without giving it any thought whatsoever. I agree with OM. This gets old. Very old. Please people, use your heads. Read. Think. It is the reason God gave you a brain; to use. --Filll 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that it takes people that 'think' to not accept propositions put out by the main stream, establishment science. Most of our great discoveries were made by those who doubted the mainstream beliefs in science. 'Parroting' dogma without allowing questioning of any sort is certainly 'brainless'. 'Please, people' believe what you are told without question. 68.109.234.155 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you believe I don't "think".  My training has been, for at least 30 years, to examine everything with a critical eye.  I've read and studied more biology than you could imagine, and if I thought at any point something didn't make sense, I would ask questions.  Yes, great ideas come from question the status quo.  That would be Darwin challenging the prevailing Christian viewpoint, or Gallileo challenging just about everything that was said.  All the evidence, not just 99.9%, but all fit the theory of Evolution.  Yes, I'm smart enough to know that maybe someday some piece of evidence will arise that will through the whole theory into doubt.  Maybe we will find a fluffy bunny rabbit in Precambrian rocks.  Orangemarlin 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility, and controversy 

message: Please note at the top, there is a to-do list to get this article back to FA status.  Please strike through any tasks that you've accomplished, or you've noticed accomplished.  There was an edit conflict (my fault), and I'm not sure who archived the to-do list, but thanks!  Orangemarlin 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be making an effort to thoroughly reference and clarify this article, hopefully we can bring this core topic it back to FA level. TimVickers 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am so impressed with this organizational approach to improvement; a stroke of brilliance. It should eliminate most of the eclectic debates that plague this page. Well done and much luck. --71.77.209.218 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And, oh look, somebody else seems to think that the academic disciplines section needs to go, like I've repeatedly said and repeatedly been reverted. Is there anything nice I can say about that? Don't think so. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like you Samsara.  You get right to the point, without worrying about BS.  I hate that section, so will you help me if I delete it? Orangemarlin 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's do it! Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, what's a good size for an FA?  We're at 80 KB for this article, which may be just right.  Orangemarlin 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: About 40-60kb of readable text is good, the total size of the article will probably pass 100 kb when it is fully referenced. What about replacing the "academic" section with a summary of current areas of research in evolution? Origin of sex, genetic basis of speciation and the influence of developmental biology on the direction of adaptation come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. I think it is important to convey that this is an area of current research. TimVickers 02:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The challenge is to enforce a moving wall in the spirit of WP:DUST. People will repeatedly want to include research that came out last week, and I'm of the firm conviction that this is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. My suggestion for the wall period is five years. That will still give us lots of exciting stuff to talk about, if we want to go down that road. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Scholars in a number of academic disciplines continue to document examples of evolution, contributing to a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms. Every subdiscipline within biology both informs and is informed by knowledge of the details of evolution, such as in ecological genetics, human evolution, molecular evolution, and phylogenetics. Areas of mathematics (such as bioinformatics), physics, chemistry, and other fields all make important contributions to current understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. Even disciplines as far removed as geology and sociology play a part, since the process of biological evolution has coincided in time and space with the development of both the Earth and human civilization.
Evolutionary biology 
::What was the last universal common ancestor?
::Level of selection - gene-centric view and group selection
::Evolution of sex
::Punctuated equilibrium
Evolutionary developmental biology 
::The importance of mutations in developmental pathways in adaption link
Population genetics
::Neutral theory of molecular evolution - relative importance of natural selection and drift link link
Artificial life and in silico evolution
::Application of evolutionary algorithms to solve mathematical problems such as NP-complete problems.
::Computer modelling of the evolution of organisms. 
Comments? TimVickers 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline of "Current research" section

message: Is there a reason that the genetic drift section is presented before the natural selection section? My understanding (forgive me for being a clueless amateur here) is that natural selection is overall more important as a driver of evolution. It is definitely better-known and easier to understand. Kla'quot 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sections in this article are presented in order of importance. They're all too important, and too intricately connected, to make a "most-to-least-important" sequencing useful or effective. Genetic drift is presented before natural selection because it's in some ways the "baseline" effect, the inevitable statistical effect outside of any environmental context, whereas selection is the more exceptional and context-variable effect; to make up for this, natural selection is explained in more detail in the lead section, so people who read through the article will have at least some grasp on the basics of selection before getting to "genetic drift". Another reason they're presented in that order is because it provides at least what seems to be a smoother transition between "gene flow" and "adaptation" (which is associated with selection). -Silence 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic drift versus natural selection 

message: Is this really a part of the theory, and should it be in the intro?  There is now known to be a lot of horizontal gene transfer among the single celled organisms.  Additionally, organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts are hypothesized to have once been independant living organisms.  The shared genetic code would seem to suggest a shared ancestry, but perhaps there could have been a convergence on the same code once the symbiosis started.  The single anscestral species hypothesis  might be true, but does not seem essential to evolutionary theory.--Africangenesis 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a significant part of it.  Even organelles share the basic DNA code of the rest of the organism, so I would contend that mitochondria and chloroplasts share the same common ancestor.  Common descent is a critical part of Evolution, and so far, not a single iota of evidence has been found to counter that theory.  I dare say it is essential to Evolution.  Orangemarlin 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right.  Should have written my comments more clearly.  Orangemarlin 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of interesting horizontal gene transmission and confusion of lineages in archaea, fortunately the eukaryote lineages are cleaner. Some evolution is not strict vertical descent. I don't mean to be critical of the intelligent designer, but we could have used a sprinkling of different genetic codes to reduce the ease of transpecific disease transmission. 8-) --Africangenesis 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it.  But maybe one day they might find a random thing that might indicate something different, but right now everything lines up to a single common ancestor.  Orangemarlin 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... I really like the idea of multiple early origins of life on Earth (all of which ended up going extinct except for one)... but wouldn't it be awesome to find some kind of deep-sea chemoautotrophic ribozyme thingamajigs with a different genetic code and R-chiral amino acids someday... You never know, they could be out there somewhere, TxMCJ 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  descended from a single ancestral species? 

message: Is this really a part of the theory, and should it be in the intro?  There is now known to be a lot of horizontal gene transfer among the single celled organisms.  Additionally, organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts are hypothesized to have once been independant living organisms.  The shared genetic code would seem to suggest a shared ancestry, but perhaps there could have been a convergence on the same code once the symbiosis started.  The single anscestral species hypothesis  might be true, but does not seem essential to evolutionary theory.--Africangenesis 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a significant part of it.  Even organelles share the basic DNA code of the rest of the organism, so I would contend that mitochondria and chloroplasts share the same common ancestor.  Common descent is a critical part of Evolution, and so far, not a single iota of evidence has been found to counter that theory.  I dare say it is essential to Evolution.  Orangemarlin 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right.  Should have written my comments more clearly.  Orangemarlin 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of interesting horizontal gene transmission and confusion of lineages in archaea, fortunately the eukaryote lineages are cleaner. Some evolution is not strict vertical descent. I don't mean to be critical of the intelligent designer, but we could have used a sprinkling of different genetic codes to reduce the ease of transpecific disease transmission. 8-) --Africangenesis 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it.  But maybe one day they might find a random thing that might indicate something different, but right now everything lines up to a single common ancestor.  Orangemarlin 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... I really like the idea of multiple early origins of life on Earth (all of which ended up going extinct except for one)... but wouldn't it be awesome to find some kind of deep-sea chemoautotrophic ribozyme thingamajigs with a different genetic code and R-chiral amino acids someday... You never know, they could be out there somewhere, TxMCJ 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  descended from a single ancestral species?