Talk:Evolution/Archive 45

message: I can't help but notice that this page is not riddled with allegations that you have exceeded the level of your audience. Could that be because (at your request) an Introduction to Evolution entry was created? Of course, being charged with such a task, I felt a need, no, an obsession to make it FA as to be worthy of companionship. Now as I am roasting over the fire of the FA process I can't help but be  a little bit bitter. This is an FA in which the entire discussion page is a damning statement of ownership allegations.  Ironic, considering  my complete lack of confidence in my own knowledge and skills. I've been told with absolute confidence it will not make FA. If it doesn't it is not because of ownership or lack of constant pleas for assistance posted on this page. How hard would it be, to take a moment from your intellectual discourse; go next door and correct any problems.  I am not seeking any more reasons as to why it sucks. That's too easy. I asking you to edit out any problems you see. The only constraint to the edits is to remember why it was written ... that being to target a younger, less informed audience. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Golly you poor man. How many times have you changed referencing format and addressed cope-edit issues of various editors. This could go on ad infinitum (it reminds of a writing a dissertation and trying to coax a half dozen committee members to agree on style and prose). I am at a loss of the status of the article for support or oppose??? GetAgrippa (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the Intro article and I overall like it. I think some of the info would do well to be mentioned here. I would support making that article even more simple and moving some of the sections to this article-like a population genetics section. The Intro article touches on subjects (in some detail)that really should be mentioned here so that the Intro article would follow the Evo article outline but just more simple and a basic intro. I'll post my comments there too. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to Evolution 

message: The article's title is simply "Evolution", not "Theory of Evolution". When used without qualification "evolution" has 2 meanings: a theory about how one species develops from another, etc.; and the history of such developments in life on Earth. The intro should state both meanings of the standalone word "evolution".
It should then state the scope of the article, i.e. whether it covers the theory or the history or both.
In a previous discussion "Intro too genetically oriented" (now archived - it was getting a bit out of hand), I suggested that the article was too oriented towards genetics:
*It ignores the fact that Darwin was concerned with "The Origin of Species" and genetics wasn't known in his time. It's also an incorrectly narrow point of view: paleontologists study evolution but to them genetics is just a tool (molecular phylogeny), not the core subject - and paleontologists with no specific training in genetics have contributed to the theory of evolution, e.g . Punctuated equilibrium; the same goes for ethologists, whose development of theories about co-operative and altruistic behaviour has owed more ot games theory than to genetics.
*It dives into genetics without outlining the basic logic of Darwin's theory, which requires at least 1 source of variation and at least 1 pruning mechanism.
*It largely ignores sources of variation other than mutations within 1 species - endosymbiosis is the IMO the most important of these, as it was responsible for eucaryotic cells; and it is not just an example of gene flow (see discussion under ""Intro too genetically oriented").
On looking through the article a bit more I find:
*The first mention of meiosis has a cross-link but no explanation. IIRC there's a style guideline that says articles should be as free-standing as possible, and the failure to explain meiosis is violates that.
*The "Heredity" section fails to mention that suntan and sunburn are  not inherited (i.e. omits the famous "Central Dogma"). Another style guide instructs editors to state the obvious because it may not be obvious to newcomers to the subject.
*A lot of the genetics assumes sexual reproduction, despite the fact that asexual microorganisms account for the majority of the history of life on earth and most estimates say they outweigh multi-celled organisms at present.
*A lot of the genetics appears to be there for its own sake rather than to help explain either the theory of evolution or the evolutionary history of life on Earth, e.g. most of the sections "Mutation" and "Recombination".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to reread the article. It does specifically say suntan is not inherited. The article is on biological evolution and not specifically Darwinian evolution-it really just needs to be a historical reference as the article should emphasize the present status since the Synthesis. Actually now ethologist and neuroethologist are examining the cellular and genetic basis of specific human behaviors and the mutations responsible for varied behaviors in humans. I know the article mentions your concern about asexual rep. and microbes also. The article is not about the Central Dogma nor is evolution limited or restricted by the convention. The audience needs to understand Heritable, Mutation, and Recombinations, and this is pretty much basic stuff in every evolution text and encyclopedia. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to redefine scope and focus of article? 

message: evolution is too complicated ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.213.91 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, dropping the 'l' makes it simpler... Tomandlu (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Introduction to evolution is written to be simpler. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an extremely complex science; perhaps why so many are quick to reject it over Intelligent Design. It does not take a lot of brains to understand that "God Did It".   The Introduction to Evolution article hopefully serves as a good transition between the more detailed version here and the much simplier version in Simple Wikipedia. Plus ... it made Good Article Status!--Random Replicator (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's rather simple. Now understanding the theory of evolution through natural selection is a different topic altogether.--Svetovid (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic ideas are pretty simple. However, like any other subject, when you start investigating in more detail you rapidly run into a lot of complicated details. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure Logic is back, and joint quest. Evolution is to Design, as What was first: the unicell, or DNA, that is a "too long information device", or Carbon, Hidrogen, Oxigen, etc.  ! Wow ! Seems simple, and it is not ¡!¡!¡!
User: George F. Thomson. I forgot my sign in password.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.41.111 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure Logic is back, and joint quest. Evolution is to Design, as What was first: the unicell, or DNA, that is a "too long information device", or Carbon, Hidrogen, Oxigen, etc.  ! Wow ! Seems simple, and it is not ¡!¡!¡! Please do not erase, but "eat" this bit of nice scientific cheese ! ! ! It is me ! ! !  Kind regards to all !      (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not understand what you are trying to say.  Are you stating that Evolution is Design?--Dumaka (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  evollution 

message: A section that was quite sophisticated for Introduction to Evolution seems appropriate to this article. Hope it is OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I moved it to after the Heredity section and am condensing it a bit. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is it better in variation? David D. (Talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wassupwestcoast! I had suggested much the same. The Intro to Evo article has a number of really good contributions. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Since it's a Featured Article, the AfD seems likely to fail. However, one point which came up in the stress of FA nomination clarified Darwin's continuing belief in inheritance of acquired characteristics, later known as Lamarckism or Neo-Lamarckism when it was opposed by Weissmann's findings and a strict application of natural selection, confusingly called Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism. The historical section here seemed rather muddled on this point, so I've revised it, adding a couple of refs and commenting out one which presumably was incorrect. ..  dave souza, talk 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Introduction to Evolution]] 

message: Mayr, Ernst (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 
:Does anyone have this book that could look up the specific pages where he references speciation in cichlids? --Random Replicator (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not condense the more recent literature the last thirty years. Well maybe not-there is 89 references related to speciation in cichlids. Maybe there is a recent review article. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This book is in the library at my uni, but it's a public holiday here today so naturally I'm slacking off at home :) I'll be back at uni tomorrow and I can look it up for you then if you still need it. Ben (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, I went through the book and I found where he references the cichlids, but it seems only the first part of the paragraph in the Intro to evolution article is Mayr's (that I could see anyway). I added a new reference with the page number to the Intro article in the first part of the paragraph. As for the second part, Mayr does reference a paper by Greenwood: The Cichlid Fishes of Lake Nabugabo published in the Bulletin of the British Museum - Natural History (12:315-357). We may need to go hunting for it in that paper. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this one though, sorry. Ben (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PageNumbers 

message: "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes organisms to change over time." Eh, organisms don't change over time, excluding acquired characters which aren't evolution, but a succession of organisms successively have different traits so that eventually they can become so different from their ancestors as to be a new species. The Introduction to evolution introduction is much more accurate on this point. .. dave souza, talk 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: organisms --> species? Sheep81 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction looks wrong 

message: Someone added a new section on horizontal gene transfer. It's redundant with information later in the article and complete unsourced. Thoughts? Sheep81 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct it is redundant from Gene flow section. Perhaps we should just remove it and see if the editor wants to justify the edit. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New HGT section 

message: Lars Witting has proposed a mechanism whereby evolution can be directional with respect to increasing size and complexity over time. This theory is in contradiction to the mainstream view outlined in the Outcomes section:
A common misconception is that evolution is "progressive," but natural selection has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.[86] Although complex species have evolved, this occurs as a side effect of the overall number of organisms increasing, and simple forms of life remain more common.[87]
I think it is important that this hypothesis should be at least mentioned in the article. A summary of the theory plus downloadable PDFs of his book (Witting, L. 1997. A General Theory of Evolution: By selection by density dependent competitive interactions) can be found on his website: http://www.peregrine.dk/wit.html. His publications don't seem to have attracted much scientific attention, but the theory is well argued and I think should be included here. --Graminophile (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you just hit on the problem there: "His publications don't seem to have attracted much scientific attention." Wikipedia reports on what the scientific consensus is, we don't determine it. Until the scientific community starts to pay attention to this, it's not our place to do so. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Infophile, please read our policy on undue weight. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he has his work in some WP:RS we can examine it, but even then it would probably be more appropriate for evolution of complexity, which is linked from this article. You might also be interested in the historical theory of orthogenesis.-Filll (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That Journal of Theoretical Biology paper might be notable enough to be mentioned in evolution of complexity, but this appears to be the work of one man who has not gained much attention in the field. Not really important enough for the top-level article - compared to Darwin, Mendel, Dawkins or Gould. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:UNDUE if you have a chance. It states that tiny-minority views (which this is) shouldn't be mentioned at all. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of published theories and ideas concerning evolution-like neophenogenesis. I agree the undue weight clause is applicable. The undue weight argument is good, but apparently not good enough to rid us of an article like the Duesberg's hypothesis article concerning AIDS. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I missed out Cope's rule since this is the center of much dispute, eg  and there is still a lot of skepticism as to if this is a genuine effect, or just a result of sampling error. Again, these more specialised and less well-known ideas could go well in the specialised article on evolution of complexity, but are not well-enough established to go in the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember a number of laws and rules have fallen out of vogue. Dollo's law, Williston's law, but I believe Cope's rule still has some merit. Gould spoke of it in Structure of Evolutionary Theory although he suggest its just a trend. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directional Evolution - Malthusian Relativity 

message: this article is biased if i ever read it. iT doesn't present the problems within the evolutionary theory, and it certainly doesn't display creationism as a credible science. It needs some creationistic perspective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.188.29 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Evolution FAQ adresses this. Ben (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Additionally, which creationism?  Creationism isn't a monolith of thought; how many noticeably different formulations are found in Christianity alone, let alone every other religion that has an origin story? Are we supposed to buy that one of these creationisms works when all of them appear quite clearly to not fall under the purview of science? J. Spencer (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: A helix of popular science books on evolution, genetics and related topics... http://www.flickr.com/photos/seriykotik/228087914/  It's got a creative commons licence, but we'd have to be *really* creative to find a use for it on wikipedia.  Any ideas?  Edhubbard (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting creative commons image 

message: The following images are up for deletion: :Image:Leonard Darwin.jpg, :Image:Causes of evolution.jpg, :Image:Design inference.jpg, :Image:Blind Watchmaker.jpg. As the original uploader is inactive, I thought somebody who knows the image-copyright process might like to take a look to see if they're worth saving. HrafnTalkStalk 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution/Creationism images up for deletion 

message: Is there consensus on WP about whether extra whitespace should be used to space out articles for image flow? I tend to think the extra whitespace looks horrible, but that's me. Implict in this question: should we remove the extra whitespace used in this article? KellenT 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  whitespacing 

message: Hello!
I just finished a little software tool that allows you to simulate (veeeery much simplified of course) evolution. I think it is a good example to see how evolution works. Could anyone please add it to the external links list?
http://www.villalachouette.de/william/krims/simplEvolution.zip
All the best, --84.142.215.88 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As interesting as this is, I am not sure this article is the place for this. I am not sure which article if any would be relevant for this. We probably should have an article about numerical simulation of evolution, but I suspect we do not. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I think this article would be the right place. The software provides simply a basic practical application for aaaaaalllll the theory about evolution. I think some people that use wikipedia don't enjoy theory that much (e.g. school kids). They want to understand something as cheap and as fast as possible (like me btw). These people like simple practical examples. I like simple practical examples too (although i also like theory). Wikipedia has the advantage to include things like software tools in the article. Printed literature does not have this opportunity, so this is one of the main advantages that wikipedia should always be aware of. William --84.142.215.88 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually at one point there were three evolution computer simulators. I personally thought all of them were uninteresting and poor examples. Why not give real examples rather than some computer generated example? I think that would have much more impact and application. Give a real example of speciation, the environmental cause for natural selection, and the genetic shift in gene alleles associated with the trait or phenotype. Watching a computer simulation is like playing Pacman to me. Also I don't think the layperson would have gotten much from the previous simulators but this maybe improved. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not expand it to numerical simulators and models so we could include Wolfram's cellular automata, and other proposed mathematical models of evolution. I still like Fill's idea of an article of examples of Natural selection. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cellular automata don't really model evolution by natural selection. Artificial life systems such as Tierra are probably more what's being looked for. --FOo (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely!Wolfram rants natural selection is not needed. I'm not particularly fond of his work-I was joking about him-long story! But evolution modeling is a worthy subject and a topic I have mentioned before, and I like Fill's idea about a Nat Sel article. The computer simulators seems a topic worthy of an article. GetAgrippa (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software for the simulation of evolution 

message: Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on the use of questionable sources (which might include self-published creationist websites) in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Restricting questionable sources to articles about themselves. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sources 

message: Well, I guess Wikipedia doesn't hold evolution to be a theory. Nothing like good old-fashioned bias! Oh wait...there's a "fact vs. theory" page that tries to justify it...I guess that page makes it ok to ignore that it's a theory, since a bunch of untrained, random, self-qualified individuals said so. Good thing people are waking up to Wikipedia's agenda-ridden stranglehold on internet "truth."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.187.93 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your considered comments. I am sure you will find everything you need here. Snalwibma (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Good thing people are waking up to Wikipedia's agenda-ridden stranglehold on internet "truth.""  I find that statement hilarious. This article is the results of consensus between evolutionary biologists, scientists, and laypersons-all contributions are welcome with appropriate justification and references. Nobody is just making it up and personal opinions are not welcome-no matter the opinion. It is a science article plain and simple, and the editors in good faith have tried to create an excellent encyclopedic article. The idea is to educate people not saturate them with personal opinions-nothing against your opinion. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theory"? 

message: On 24 January 2008 I last contributed to a thread "Need to redefine scope and focus of article?", in which I questioned the article's extreme depedence on genetics (after all Darwin knew no genetics). That thread is no longer visible on this page or in the most recent archive. Whoever did the archiving needs to sort this out. Philcha (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This article is about biological evolution-not Darwinian evolution. Even Darwin's view of natural selection has a vague resemblance to todays definition. It would be an injustice not to emphasize a genetics based view since the definition of evolution is genetic and pop geneticist modeling is central to modern evolutionary biology. I guess we can present a strawman argument that inheritance is passed by gemmules as Darwin believed and give the creationist a bone to chew on. I am not surprised by the archiving but it must have been an accident to erase your post. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I fixed the archive issue, the current archive wasn't linked in the box. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Philcha (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk thread apparently deleted: "Need to redefine scope and focus of article?" 

message: With the recent increase in disruption, administrators seeing one of these sockpuppets vandalising the page should fully-protect the article and then report the account to a checkuser for an IP block and a sweep to find and block the other accounts that the vandal will have created. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet vandalism 

message: Hi there, I've removed this section since it duplicated the material in the final paragraph of the gene flow section. Since the page is currently protected editing is limited, but if anybody objects to this just say so here and I'll revert myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now back to semi-protected. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not happy about the removal of "Horizontal gene transfer", although I can't be as specific as I'd like about why without further study. The "Gene flow" section currently is approx. 80% about sexually-reproducing organisms, mainly animals. Horizontal transfer among single-celled organisms is a completely different matter, IIRC: it's routine, and by no means limited to within "species", e.g. antibiotic resistance (whatever "species" means for asexual organisms); there are more mechanisms (viruses; plasmids; "equal" exchange of genes between 2 individuals, not always of the same "species"; gene donation, usually fatal to the donor, but the recipient quickly re-shuffles the genes and divides) - and that's what I dimly recall off the top (possibly from something by Lynn Margulis), and without getting into endosymbiosis and its consequences; and without getting into Williamson's Larvae and Evolution (horizontal gene transfer between very different sexually-reproducing metazoa). I fear that this may turn out to be another case of the article's taking too narrow a perspective; unfortunately I don't have time to research the issues right now because someone's asked me to have a go at something else and it requires a big change of perspective from what prompted them to ask (i.e. a lot of research). PS: have you noticed this post is already longer than the one surviving para about horizontal gene transfer? Philcha (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of horizontal gene transfer section 

message: I'm not in a habit of breaking Wikipedia policy, but I have a question to which I have not been able to find an answer. This seems like a good place to ask. I believe I have a good understanding of how evolution works, but I have not yet seen how evolution explains the difference in the number of chromosomes between organisms. Humans have 46; but some species have over a hundred, and it is (as best I have found) always an even number. Could someone direct me to an overview of how this process works? It might make a worthy addition to this article (or the chromosome article) if it has not been explained there yet. Thanks. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why it is that some species have up to 100 chromosomes, I don't know.  Why it is that all species (or at least, all sexual species) have an even number of chromosomes is easy; they inherit one of each chromosome from their parents, so humans actually have 23 pairs.  22 pairs of autosomes and a pair of sex chromosomes: the X and Y chromosomes.  For a nice accessible clear discussion of why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of 24 (as our primate ancestors do) see the PBS special on the Dover trial here.  See in particular "Chapter 6".  Edhubbard (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (ps: as a general rule, science is good at answering "how" questions, but "why" questions are a little harder, or even really part of philosophy.) Edhubbard (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: To the original poster: You may have been labouring under the same misconception that I was (and which confused the hell out of me). A different number of chromosomes does not prevent breeding. Therefore a change of chromosome numbers in a single individual does not isolate that individual. You might take a look at: Chromosome 2 (human) - bottom line, the number of chromosomes is probably the least significant part of DNA (you might compare it to having a one-volume copy of Lord of the Rings, to having 3 volumes - the content doesn't change). Tomandlu (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromosome number changes 

message: There is a RfC on this talkpage at Talk:David Snoke#RfC: Does Desai & Fisher (2007) and Desai et al (2007) support Behe & Snoke (2004)? As the papers involve issues of evolutionary mechanisms, I thought that some editors here might wish to venture an opinion. HrafnTalkStalk 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Talk:David Snoke]] 

message: ::Hi. Would it be helpful for the general understanding of all to include what appears to me to be a good latin motto explaining somehow more what Evolution of Life means to Evolutionists ? :
VITA PRIMORDIUM ORIUNDUS SUBSTANCIA MINIMUS FORTUITO : Life originates arising by small chance from substance or mater.  (Latin expression by : George F. Thomson, c.2008). Kind Regards. GeorgeFThomson (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin motto