Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 2

message: I just wanted to say that I realize that this article is a work in progress, but I admire it enormously. Good job. I hope that this particular article doesn't prove to be an evolutionary dead end, so to speak. I hope it remains what it claims to be an "introduction to evolution" that is short and readily comprehensible for nonspecialists. I'm a fairly smart guy with a bit of education, but find some of the technical jargon in the main article to be difficult to digest, for instance. Anyway, again, kudos to the authors.--Ggbroad 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well Done

message: I shoved this image in there but it is probably in the wrong place. We could shove cuvier and the fossil picture together too I think.
--Filll 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something about the term "child" and "children" does not work for me. It either places too much emphasis on humans in relation to evolution or perhaps worse; implies animals have 'children' which seems too Disney like. I had an image of Bambi for some reason.  Was the term "offspring" too complicated? --Random Replicator 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image placement

message: Minor consideration:
Current: 
In this way, differences accumulate and can eventually lead to major changes in a population of organisms.
Suggested Rewrite:
In this way, differences that accumulate over time can lead to major changes in a population of organisms.  
Logic: Eliminate the possible contradiction: the term "can" implies it might while the term "eventually" may be perceived as it will. Also "time" is a good word to squeeze in when discussing evolution.--Random Replicator 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, did a couple of very minor rewordings in intro related to structure (not content), several have worked on that section so feel free to review and edit as you see fit. Have you notice that the most reworked section in a Wiki article is the intro? This one seems to be melding well.--Random Replicator 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love the way the table of content and the tree line up on my screen. Please make a note Filll, maybe we can keep it that way as future edits occur. I have yet to invest time in formating skills ... my planning period ... here I sit staring at that stack of papers :(--Random Replicator 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  True, I guess I was thinking in reference to the 'slang' use of the word. Perhaps indicative of my southern roots. When will you get to it? ... "eventually". Certainly in an unspecified amount of time ... but it will get done. As I said, a minor consideration. What is your take on the over-all intro? I'll quit 'tweaking' it if it works for you. Since you are in the writing mode ...  consider squeezing LaMarck and his misconceptions into the article... I would do it but my brain hurts from reading Fillls battle of words on the various discussion pages.  --Random Replicator 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that's a "slang" meaning, I think it's just that "eventually", like all words, implies "will happen" rather than "may happen" in any context except one where words like "may" or "can" are actually used. For example, if you ask someone "When will you get to it?" and they respond "Sometime" or "Tomorrow", that doesn't preclude you from saying things like "I may get to it sometime" or "Maybe I'll do it tomorrow". For the same reason, "eventually" only means that something is actually going to happen if nothing in the sentence suggests otherwise. If you asked the question "Is it possible that you're ever going to get to it?" and I respond "Eventually", that doesn't mean that I'll definitely get to it eventually; from context, it is clear that it means that it's possible that I'll get to it eventually, because that's what question is being answered. So "can eventually do" doesn't mean must eventually do. -Silence 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm OK with revising the sentence if it can be made clearer or simpler; I just don't see a benefit to revising it to avoid ambiguity with "eventually" that few, if any, will be confused by. For example, a change like "In this way, differences can accumulate and eventually lead to major changes in a population of organisms." might be better, or even better "In this way, differences can accumulate over time and lead to major changes in a population." I don't like the specific rewrite you suggested only because the "that" makes the sentence structure unnecessarily complex, and we're trying to make the first paragraph of the lead section as simple as possible. -Silence 17:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Went with this one as you suggest ..... "that" ..... be gone now. As always, change as you see fit. --Random Replicator 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for sentence revision 

message: I went to the place where I obtained them and they are still in those articles. If there was a real fair use challenge, they would not be in any WP articles and they would not be available in the data base. So restored them.--Filll 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow nice moths. Some creationists attack those moth pictures as forgeries. I thought about rearranging them or cementing the two  pictures together, but I didnt want to make a mess. They look pretty good.--Filll 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be too off-topic, but how exactly were those pictures taken originally then? Homestarmy 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I mean how were they set up and all, and is the Creationist thing about those moths not normally sitting on trees like that during that time of day true and whatnot. Homestarmy
Well that appears to be correct, but it is basically irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Sorry.--Filll 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See Peppered moth evolution for more information. -Silence 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto  See Peppered moth evolution for more information. Covers the contoversey in detail. But as Filll points out, there is no reference to Industrial melanism  in this article; just serves as an example for gene frequencies. I'm actually more concerned about Haeckel's photograph. We mention the incorrectness of the theory of recapitulation; should we point out that the picture was the one accused of misguiding? I looked for a more accurate depiction of embryology in Wiki commons, but found none. --Random Replicator 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove the Haeckel image. It's inaccurate and out of date. -Silence 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Use attack on our images

message: Prior edit of vestigal, although accurate, forces an expansion of the introduction with excessive detail. Vestigal is discussed later in the document. If need be modifications and improvements can occur there. Seemed simplier to me (and for the reader) to drop the reference to vesitgal in the intro sentence as it is not critical to setting up the following passages. Thus avoiding the need define in such detail. Nothing lost as I can see by simply referring to genetic and anatomical comparisons in a general sort of way. If this makes no sense ... you would need to compare recent edits in "history". If it still makes no sense it is because I am indeed clueless: In fact let me go back agrab the sentence. --Random Replicator 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vestigal modification 

message: Gilbert and Sullivan put it, 'Darwinian man though well behaved is really but a monkey shaved!' I am wondering about a page of evolution quotes, with some explanatory material as well and historical context so it is just not a list of quotes.--Filll 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another great "quote"

message: I just read that the species on opposite sides of the great wall of China have diverged because there is a barrier. Comments?--Filll 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speciation

message: Not sure it should remain, but it amuses me.--Filll 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firt day of the new semester --- several things to contemplate. Bees, which I hope to have my students read soon for your feedback and this little addition. I'm not sure. It is amusing and I'm not opposed. I suggest we let it sit awhile and see if it generates any excitment. If it could be moved to below the misconceptions or alternative views section so that it is not in between the heavier material; it might flow better. Creationism followed by tongue in cheek works better for me than Dawkins followed by shaving apes. You crack me up! --Random Replicator 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did the dinosaur cross the road? A: Chickens hadn't evolved yet. This one and several others you shared in prior discussion? :)   --Random Replicator 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section

message: Our scientist keep disappearing????  Yet they remain on the main entries within Wikipedia. I am not all that up on rights of use; what am I missing here? Is it at Admin -thing where you delete without explanation... sort of omni-potent. --Random Replicator 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here is what I found out. I went to look at the Theodosius Dobzhansky's picture, and it said that WP did not have permission to use the picture except on that one article, his home article at Theodosius Dobzhansky. Then I did some searching, and there are a few other pictures that exist on the web, with a variety of copyrights to museums etc. I presume that the same is true of our other missing picture to Gould. What we presumably have to do is to sit down and write emails to the copyright holders to give us rights to use the pictures on our website here. I had to do it for a physics article, so I know what the letter has to look like. I guess I should do it for Gould and Theodosius Dobzhansky and clear this up once and for all, if I can. I presume we could get them to release the pictures into the public domain, or at least for our use. At least it is worth a try. So that is where we stand at the moment, at least in my estimation. I wish the guy who has been nuking the pictures had stopped to tell us WHY he was taking them down, because until I looked, I did not know.--Filll 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gould 

message: I think we have a problem with spacing. I tried to fix it without much success. We need an expert and more fiddling I am afraid.--Filll 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trouble with Dog and pigeon pictures

message: I removed
*Evolution is silent about the process which created life on earth, known as abiogenesis.
from the misconceptions section because:
*It is wrong. A major hypothesis for the origin of life is that of molecules and protobionts evolved, by natural selection, toward stable, reproducing prokaryotes.
*It is unclear. "is silent about"; use of abiogenesis instead of "origin of life"
Pcu123456789 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry this is not part of biological evolution. It might be a major theory, but it is not part of evolution. Evolution is about the ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Ever hear that phrase? This is also an introductory article, and a lot of the changes you made made it hard to understand. If you want a complicated article and more accurate article, go to evolution--Filll 00:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing origin of life from misconceptions 

message: I have watched in the last day a large number of changes take place. Some I think improved the text. Some made it harder to read. Some did not improve the English. Some I think introduced mistakes. I thought it was best to let them continue and then see what looked best. I might wait for another short while and see if this continues, or if it settles down again, except for maybe what appears to me to be an egregious error or two.--Filll 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edits were indeed numerous, more than we have seen since its inception; however, I have no objections to Pcu123456789 contributions, they seem to increase both accuracy and readability. In fact, I am glad someone has shown an interest. All minor edits, with one exception which was addressed on the discussion page. A fresh set of eyes is perhaps needed. --Random Replicator 04:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elmerglues contributions; however, do not share the "spirit" of the project! --Random Replicator 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do bees know that a drunk is a repeat offender???? Ummmm ...a question posed by one of my students when I shared your story .... I had not an answer but I refered them to your entry Filll. Not the page to discuss this issue, but I will be getting back with you on the bees with other puzzling questions raised by my students. --Random Replicator 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent storm of changes 

message: A newly added sentence.
Coevolution may involve symbiosis, where two species live in close association, or an evolutionary arms race, for example.
In the spirit of simplicity, is this too much information?  or  Can it be incorporated it into the paragraph in a way that it is more clearly "self-defining". The symbiosis "where two species live in close association" seems to work ok. But the "evolutionary arms race" seems to be dangling there. --Random Replicator 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advocate making it as simple as possible. We have a more advanced article for more advanced ideas.--Filll 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Filll, I am going to drop the sentence, it has merit; yet maybe more info than needed in an intro article and I can think of no way to simplify the arms race without extending the passage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-evolution 

message: Could some one add the definition of "viable" as a foot note. It appears in the definition of species... offspring that are viable and fertile. From my encounters as a teacher, its meaning is not always understood. Personally, I would rather leave the term in the text and foot note it than get too wordy with species definition. I would do it myself, but I would likely create formating issues. Thanks--Random Replicator 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wikilinked it. You want more? --Filll 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works, Thanks--Random Replicator 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  viable