Talk:Evolution/Archive 34

message: The article is fine as an explanation of changes of population gene frequencies.
You could as well have defined evolution as relating to the diversification of life 
on earth, and introduced natural selection as an important explanatory principle.
See my addition to the intro related to cladistics and taxonomy.  
Please someone correct the spelling of "cataloguing."  I can't get to that text.
I am newbie on this page. 
Dfarrar 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of evolution is for population biology 

message: After seeing his latest edit to this article, I checked out his talk page and edit history. Can anybody tell me why this user has not been permanently blocked from editing? MrDarwin 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was more impressed that Scorpionman had finally seen the light!  ;)  --Plumbago 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, the shock was too much for him to take it seems, as he was apparently blocked for his own safety. But don't worry, us True Believers (tm) will continue the fight! :) Homestarmy 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scorpionman 

message: I just spent a few hours fixing references on this article.  Luckily, I have the flu, so what else am i going to do!  I'm going to take a break, but I think an article as scientific and well-done as this one, should have bad references.  People make edits, and don't use even the slightest standards for referencing articles.  I went along with a few other editors and used the WP:CITET method of references.  I happen to like it, because it standardizes the references below.  I also found references that were not really worthy of an article like this one; for example, one was essentially a link to a commercial website for seeds.  I also dug up the right references in a few cases, fixed some grammar, and put in some commentary about George Bush.  OK, I did not do the last one.  I thought about it just to see if anyone was reading.
Anyways, can we please keep the references clean.  If you notice an edit with just a web link, clean it up using WP:CITET templates.  It really takes just a few moments.  If you're an editor, spot check references for their usefulness, especially if it's a new edit and reference.  I'm trying to be civil, but I think I'm going to make someone recite the Origin of Species backwards if they mess up the references!!!!  Yeah, I'm retentive, but you have to be in my career.  Orangemarlin 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: for a picture of a chicken with four legs see here.......I will add later to the article in morphological evidence CrystalizedAngels 14:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy S***! MarkBuckles  (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that more likely to be some sort of siamese twin, though? Adam Cuerden talk 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  for a picture of a chicken with four legs 

message: I feel as if it is best for us to move this article to Theory of Evolution for a few reasons. First of all, the name Theory of Evolution is more nuteral than Evolution. Second, many religious people may be a little offended at this being dipicted as if it is a fact. Lastly, Evolution is just a scientific theory, not a fact. Theory of Evolution would be a more correct title for this article. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Wikipedia doesn't, and shouldn't, rewrite articles to prevent offending the religious. illspirit|talk 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do read Talk:Evolution/FAQ it will send you a very specific article called Evolution as theory and fact. This is the information you should look at. The Law of Gravity is also both theory and fact. Would you have us rename Gravity to Theory of gravity? 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this discussion must be repeated about once every two months.  Next should be massive arguments on both sides.  Then name calling.  Then reverting of edits.  Then it all dies down for it to happen all over again.  Tiresome.  Orangemarlin 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said repeatedly, the most popular argument, bar none, is that "evolution is a theory, not a fact". For some reason that resonates in the empty cavities of assorted crania.--Filll 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot say "bar none," because I'm stating to you right now, and I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it when you have so many other resources available to enhance your understanding, that evolution is a fact, and even more than a theory. Although for the sake of scientific interests, we label it as only a theory.Valich 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there goes the counter-Wikipedious name-calling. There are scads of instances of the word "theory" in the article, so wherein is the problem? Since this is an article on a scientific topic, the word is properly used as used by scientists (as in 'theory of gravity' -- thanks). There is an article theory, which is not cross-referenced here as far as I see, and contrasts scientific and other uses of the term.  Now if you'll excuse me I'm off for a relaxing tour of the global warming discussion.    Dfarrar 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Evolution does not equal to the theory of natural selection, natural selection is a hypothesis(quite frankly at this point it is just more, much more than a theory) which explains the process of under which evolution happens. Evolution is observable, it is not only a theory. Take the same antibiotic against a bacterial infection, and you will see what happens. The process under which this evolution happened can be a theory and/or a hypothesis, but the fact that an 'evolution' did happen can not be contested. In short, evolution is not a theory. Fad (ix) 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, this is all explained in the article or the various archives of this talk page. There's really no point reiterating it, to be honest. illspirit|talk 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am agreing with you, you guys even created a FAQ subpage, a great idea. I'll steal the idea for another article. :) Fad (ix) 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fad, your arguments and opinion belong on a talk forum, not here.  This discussion section is for how to improve the article, not question its validity and scientific content, or to question what constitutes a hypothesis vs. a theory vs. fact, or to state that evolution does not equal NS (Yes, We all know that evolution is much more complex than just that), or to tell us about your views on taking antibiotics.Valich 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misread me, check your talk. Fad (ix) 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia considers evolution an undeniable and undisputed fact and any opposing evidence as 'junk science' regardless and only people with several mental illness (such belief in god) would disagree. You'll have better luck getting Evolution renamed to "The Fact of Evolution." or arguing 1+1=3 Wyatt 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Previous commenters have objected to inclusion in this Talk page of questions already answered in the FAQ. There was even a proposal to move them to a special archive called 'Evolution debates'. In lieu of that, to save space here and to maintain visibility of old discussions, how about I 'box up' the above discussion using a Show/Hide pair of templates, such as  and . Those names are short for  and .  I have done so for the above thread so you can see what it looks like. If you disagree, simply remove the pair of templates. I'll wait for feedback before doing this elsewhere EdJohnston 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea even better than the "Evolution Debates" archive, but others might object to it for the same reasons, i.e., that these discussions should simply be deleted.  I'm worried that outright deletion (or moving to users' talk pages) will only stoke more flame wars, so I like the hat/hab archives.  It would be nice if the template didn't say the archive should not be edited.  By the way, this seems like a nice way to archive all long discussions, as long as the template doesn't say it can't be edited.  Maybe we could consider hat/hab archiving all comments between the initial post and the final resolution (if available).  Gnixon 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment: Proposal to move [[Evolution]] to [[Theory of evolution]] 

message: This article states it as fact that evolution happened.  It is an unproved theory.  It is simply a belief system.  Anyone can call me a crazy creationist if they feel like it, but it doesn't change this.  And if creation is an idiotic belief that only people who can't or won't think believe in, why not put the arguments for it and against it in schools and musems? (Please don't say that creatonists dont either.  Its not true) Are the evolutionists scared of something?    I think they are.  And despite what evolutionists want us to belive, there are no rock layers of fossils of increasingly complicated organisms.
anyone who doesnt like these statements send me a message.
````oddball 2002    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddball 2002 (talk • contribs). 20 March, 2007.
::You're wrong.  And this point has been debated 17 times.  Please check the archives.  Orangemarlin 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see, I have a BS in Biochemistry, an MS in Biochemistry, an MD, and nearly 30 years of experience in Science and Medicine, and I'm being lectured about what is a cell?  So I probably know more than you how complicated a cell is.  And so?  Four billion years of evolution will give you complexity and diversity.  I'm happy with that, and I don't need to believe that your mythical god had anything to do with it.  And I've seen the one part of that boring DVD you mentioned (3 discs to whine about Evolution).  It's so filled with incredible statements that it goes without saying, it is a load of BS.  Go here if you want to read about the Bombadier Beetle .  You can't prove Creationism wrong, because it can't be falsified.  No matter what I say, you'll resort to this pathetic notion that your mythical god had something to do with it.  It's a boring, exhausting, and nonsense argument that makes no sense to me.  I may grant that my G_d established the natural laws of the universe, but everything else follows that law.  Every animal on this earth evolved through a series of random events.  And that my friend is a verifiable, indisputable fact.Orangemarlin 15:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue is addressed in the FAQ.  Editors should remember to keep a civil tone with each other and avoid reigniting long-settled debates.  Gnixon 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution statements 

message: I think this article should be tagged controversial because many people don't believe in evolution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.117.139 (talk • contribs) 
::I agree with you:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thoughts are outwith science, which is what this article's about. This article describes what evolution means in biology, not what it means in a faith context. dave souza, talk 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know. In science evolution is just a fact. Just to let everyone know, I am not going to give up until I see that this article is NPOV. Doing what is right is more important than doing what is popular. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is a fact, I told you, take the same antibiotic everytime you have an infection and see what happens. It is observable, repeatable, measurable etc. Read the articles introduction and see under which context it is used. Fad (ix) 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comments. The controversy is already well-covered at Evolution#Social and religious controversies, with links to three sub-articles which more fully explore the issue. Controversial articles per se do not require any tagging. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this social and religious section is not NPOV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whoutz (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue is addressed in the FAQ.  Gnixon 18:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Why on earth has this returned? It's like a hideous vampire, returning from the dead to kill off good writing, and to keep its undead, over-edited corpse alive by feasting on the life of the article. REWRITE NEEDED BADLY!!!! Adam Cuerden talk 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I put it back because rewriting is better than deletion (that is, we all agree Darwin and Mendel, etc., need to be mentioned in the intro). If it's deleted, it'll take forever for it to come back. Its festering corpse will more rapidly encourage rewriting. Graft 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I do hope we drive the stake of rewriting through its heart soon. Adam Cuerden talk 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: With the exception of the unexplained mention of Mendelian inheritance, I kind of liked it, though I don't think it adds much to the lead as it is now.  What specifically don't you like about it, Adam?  If there was a discussion of it before, can you link to it?--Margareta 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Various things - it didn't handle Wallace or earlier evolutionists well, the second half of it about "With its extraordinary explanatory and predictive power... central organising principle of biology, etc."  bears no relationship to the first half, and, lastly, it WILL NOT DIE!!! It's the only part of the lead that's identical in phrasing to the ancient  lead of  a year ago, despite losing all the transition between its halves. We don't need no stinkin' Cytochrome-c in our lead. DIE YE VESTIGE OF THE EVOLUTION ARTICLE'S EVOLUTIONARY PAST! Adam Cuerden talk 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...the hell? 

message: I would greatly appreciate input in discussions surrounding content of Jewish reactions to intelligent design. My interference appears to have gotten this and Jewish opposition to evolution blocked. I apologise. But I think both articles need serious attention less they waltz into OR and essay gray areas.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input appreciated 

message: Anyone else find it a bit weird that we include discussion of HGT but not of sexual reproduction? Does this seem to be needlessly privileging phylogenetics? Sure, HGT confounds that, but otherwise I don't see why it's any more or less germane than sex. I seem to recall that we had sex in here in the past and excised it... anyone have any feelings on the subject? Since this is an open(ish) evolutionary conundrum as well, it maybe bears inclusion. Graft 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that it's because it's presumed sexual reproduction is already understood, but this is probably a bit mistaken. Still, we don't need to go into much detail - how about a paragraph on genetic recombination and independent assortment in the basic processes section? Adam Cuerden talk 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good Margareta! So much for Muller's ratchet. There are always exceptions to the rule in biology. Like bacteria (planctomycetes ) with nucleus like structures, and fish that have evolved placentas. Makes things interesting!! I noted in a recent Science edition talking about the size of genomes and abundance of non-coding DNA that it maybe proportional to the size of the cell or metabolic rate such than natural selection may select for larger genomes. They had good accordance with osteocyte size and genome size and looked at fossils and present life. Plants followed the cell size trend. Interesting reading. It reminds me of Darwin's finches beak differences, which I always assumed that the genetic variation was either influencing neural crest and bone morphogenetic protein so something directly related would be the gene in question, yet calmodulin seems to be the culprit. Examining genes and traits is not always straightforward. Back to the topic SEX! I get off track sometimes-it reminds me of the ole joke-"Meanwhile ,back at the oasis, the Arabs were eating their dates." Oops, sorry about that. I must have calligraphic Tourette's syndrome. Is there no cure??? Hee, hee, hee. GetAgrippa 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sexy enough 

message: Take a look at the following. All these state evolution is a theory. Let me quote from the last link "Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is a current best explanation." It does not say it is a fact, it says it is a theory and like all theories it is the best explaination that we have. Also I have asked a science teacher that I know if Evolution is a theory and her answer was "Yes." I think she knows more about this than many of you. Thanks:) James, La gloria è a dio 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if you saw this in the clutter of your talk page in the last few days, but Why  is evolution described as though it is a fact, though it is just a theory? article sums this up quite nicely. In the context of this article, it describes the observed process, which is indeed fact. The theory itself, however, is indeed a theory. --Hojimachongtalk 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure he cares.  But, I read those sites, and 3 out of 4 are christian or creationist sites.  One of them misuses the term "theory" to imply a theory is less than a fact.  Lastly, I'll chime in first, that I know MUCH more than your science teacher about this field, especially if her answer to "is Evolution a theory" being yes.  Others will add their two-cents worth soon, I'm sure.  I can't wait to read Filll's response.  66.17.1.189 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: James, please also read Evolution as theory and fact in addition to Hojimachong's FAQ link. These words are defined in science in a different way than you are using them, which is likely the source of your confusion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the lead of the article should mention the fact that evolution is a theory in light of the above sources. Note, in the field of science, the word theory conveys a different meaning than when it is used colloquially. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources are 1)  mostly christian propaganda, 2) amateurish, and 3) ranks way below better written and peer-reviewed articles.  Evolution is a fact and a theory at the same time.  The POV and canard that James is foisting onto us is trying to lessen the level of Evolution to that of ID and Creation Science, both of which are classified as pseudoscience, and neither qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word.  This debate was done several times over, but people don't want to read back in the archives.  It's honestly a waste of typing time.  Orangemarlin 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even better is to just refer them to this page's FAQ, which explains why such issues are no longer debated here.  Gnixon 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue has been discussed.  Please see the FAQ.  Gnixon 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory or Fact 

message: Hi there, I'd like some expert advice on this interesting theory within an article up for GA review. I've moved part of the article onto the talk page, as this doesn't match what I understand by the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Any comments on this talk page would be welcome. TimVickers 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary pumps 

message: These are excellent references, and would be very good for the HGT section, but are a bit much for the lead.
* Citing numerous additional sources, the article states in the discussion section that, "plant mitochondria frequently fuse, with their genomes recombining, which makes it easy to imagine multiple mitochondrial genes being acquired in a single event involving whole-mitochondrial transfer." This is process is relatively common and well studied in bacteria.
* 
*</ref>
We should definately add these - and the references left in the lead - to the section on gene flow (encompassing HGT, hybridisation, etc) Adam Cuerden talk 11:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial topics usually end up needing them anyway, as it helps protect them from drive-by POV, by setting a "standard" that must be lived up to. Adam Cuerden talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut those three references but I guarantee you that someone will now put in a "need citation" tag. Then I'll put them back in, I guess?  The alternative is to add in parentheses :(see: Mechanisms of evolution: New Species below)", and create a new subsection.Valich 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Richard Dawkins article solved this problem by adding HTML comments stating that the reference was later in the article.  Joe D (t) 11:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut references 

message: The term suggests typological thinking, not required in the context.  
Also, many would associate speciation with reproductive isolation. 
I suggest "at some point diverging populations become sufficiently distinct that 
they may be considered distinct species, in particular if the capacity is lost for 
interbreeding between the populations. 
Dfarrar 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro:  suggest removing reference to "types" 

message: In the lead, can we come up with a way that "sampling error" in relation to genetic drift can be phrased in a more layperson-oriented fashion?--Margareta 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...as over large numbers the random changes tend to average out, but, in small populations, the fate of any one individual (and all his genes) matters far more." - A little wordy, but you could always use half of it (large or small).Adam Cuerden talk 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm....  nice start, but let's keep working on it.--Margareta 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I definitely want to keep that idea in there. Drift is hard to understand and important to understand. It is ESPECIALLY important that people understand evolution as a stochastic and not a deterministic process, including selection. I think a second clause simply explaining "sampling error" might work, but I'm also not overly concerned with making the idea of "sampling error" more accessible simply by making genetic drift less so. This is the article on evolution; our allegiance should be first to clarifying ideas relevant to that. Graft 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember to balance completeness with conciseness in the introduction.  Genetic drift is an important modification to the idea of evolution by natural selection, but I'm not sure it's so important that it needs to be explained in the introduction.  Gnixon 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article about natural selection, it is an article about evolution. Graft 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't clear.  If I was introducing evolution to someone who hadn't heard of it, I would say something like... 1) we have all these different species because they evolved into their present forms; 2) they got there over a long period of time, mostly by natural selection picking from among random variations (this is where Darwin and everyone else went Aha!); 3) sometimes statistical effects are important, especially if populations are small (this is an importan issue if you're trying to understand evolution more deeply).  I'm just saying that (3) might not make it into my introductory paragraph.  I agree with Margareta's comment below.  Gnixon 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and Margareta's right. I withdraw my objections. Graft 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot!  Consensus has been reached!  (Dontcha just love it when it's that easy?)--Margareta 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot-woot!  Yeah, baby, consensus---go all of us.  This was a good discussion.  Now can we come up with a good edit for the article?  Gnixon 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The reader is not going to come to an understanding of genetic drift via the lead.  We want to keep them reading so they get to the more detailed sections, not have them stumble early on over unfamiliar jargon.  Remember the lead is an introductory overview.--Margareta 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a difference between "simple" and "dumbed-down" ("horse with favoured odds" ??). At least a mention of genetic drift in the lead is necessary, for a simple reason: the uninitiated reader might come to believe that evolution = natural selection, a common misunderstanding that we should combat. Of course this does not mean that we should absolutely fudge a complete discussion of genetic drift in the lead. The current version seems OK to me on this point.--Thomas Arelatensis 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right...  The question wasn't about whether to cover genetic drift, just whether to use jargon, i.e. the term "sampling error," to describe it in the lead.--Margareta 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, I'm not wedded to that horse analogy. I just thought it was a good way to convey the mix of the action of drift and selective pressure. Feel free to ax it if you have a better notion. Graft 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sampling Error"