Talk:Evolution/Archive 42

message: Biological evolution occurs at levels other than just species. I can understand the emphasis on species level. But cooperation and competion are especially useful concepts for understanding selfish genes and networks of coperative species (ecosystems). It seems a shame to have those sections in particular so species-level-centric. WAS 4.250 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is entirely fair, the co-operation section does contain a cellular-level example, and the kin selection discussion is directly focussed on the gene level. Tim Vickers 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological evolution occurs at levels other than just species 

message: if i were to go through each one, how many would i find actually applies to the sentence it's attached to and supports it?  i'm finding many of them don't.  is this a product of lazy attempt to make the article look referenced or is it a product of the fact that there are dozens of editors cut and pasting?  very disturbing.  i try to fix 'em as i go, but i'm afraid i'm not good at doing literature searches to find ones that do apply.Wikiskimmer 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find badly-applied references, tag them with the  template and we can find better ones. That would be a very useful piece of double-checking, thank you. Tim Vickers 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them are from journals so I'd see the number growing, not shrinking. Maybe we can coordinate our efforts so we're not all skimming through the same papers? Bendž|Ť 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The situation might not be as black as it has been painted, Bendzh, but perhaps I'm just an optimist. Tim Vickers 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there are over a 100 references in this article. how many actually apply? 

message: Another chicken/egg question I wouldn't mind answered - which came first, the pollinator or the flower? --124.181.248.216 11:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: coevolution. Please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Bendž|Ť 11:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that the question raises an important point which is that eco-systems, as much as populations, are the object of the mechanisms of evolution.  Coevolution is one concept that recognizes this, but I think the article itself could say more about the importance of ecology - the importance of approaching the study of individual species as well as natural history in general from an ecological point of view, and of making ecosystems as such and not just individual species objects of study by evolutionary scientists. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which came first? 

message: This article (which looks like a junk pile to me) has a list of misconceptions about evolution. I cleaned it up a bit and then some other editor came in and hacked it up. Anyone want to take a stab at this mess?--Filll 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a slash. Tim Vickers 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of misconceptions]] 

message: I would like to make Wikipedia just this much more accurate by having someone edit the claim that "'c' indicates vestigial hind limbs" in reference to the whale diagram. I would just like to say that those bones are not "vestigial Limbs" but anchor points for muscles that are crucial for whale reproduction. It angers me that people use this source as a means to promote their completley illogical and unscientifically supported claims. 
This claim is a direct violation of the rule: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
75.128.195.238 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of verifiability, could you please provide a reliable source for the statement that these bones are essential for whale reproduction? Thanks. Tim Vickers 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In contrast to the forelimbs, hindlimbs did not maintain or acquire a new function during the evolution of modern cetaceans.
I think this idea that these vestigial bones have a reproductive function is incorrect. I've added this new reference to the article. 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, a structure (like the hind limbs of a whale) can be vestigial and still have a function. I don't know if the hind limb bones are crucial for whale reproduction or not, but they're certainly vestigial because they are homologous to quadruped hind limb bones except they no longer serve that function. SeeVestigiality Bgplayer 20:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: claim and counterclaim WAS 4.250 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The claim appears to be a creationist publication. It is not a WP:RS, using it would violate WP:NPOV#Undue_weight Bgplayer 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All legless vertebrates (snakes, lizards, and cetaceans) develop limb buds that usually regress before birth. Hox, Sonic hedgehog, and Hand2 all have been implicated. Certain whales maintain the limb buds for a longer embryological time period and hence the tendency for what is considered a vestigial hind limb. This might be a good Evodevo example because of hindlimb regression and forelimb convergent evolution into a fin, and associated changes with Hox,Sonic hedgehog, etc. GetAgrippa 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestigial Limbs 

message: It needs some serious editing and clarification I think: Evolutionary theory of sex--Filll 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, just wow. Tim Vickers 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be good stuff, but it needs some serious editing to be in Wikipedia, I suspect. I do not think the editor realizes what an encyclopedia is or is supposed to be. I suspect that the editor might be the same as the person who advanced this theory. I looked at other sex ratio theories and I am not sure where it fits in exactly, not being a biologist.--Filll 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article related to evolution of sexual differences 

message: I think there should be a big effort to translate this article into as many languages as possible. Richard001 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: This should probably be mentioned in the applications section as well, no? Richard001 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evolutionary medicine]] 

message: There should be a problems with evolution section, to prevent bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopiethePopester (talk • contribs) 
:Please read the evolution FAQ and the WP:NPOV policy. Tim Vickers 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen your reverted edit, PopiehePopester.  Creationist falsehoods are not "problems with the theory".  Please don't attempt to edit this article again until you've done a LOT more research. --Robert Stevens 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Where is an acceptable place for
:A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. 
in the article? --Yqbd 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is covered in the first paragraph of the mutation section, of particular note is reference 21. Tim Vickers 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "This item requires a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online." --Yqbd 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. 

message: I feel that many of the above comments are becoming abusive towards me. Is Filll accusing me of sock puppetry? OrangeMarlin, having accused me of edit warring on my user page, now says 'I think you joined long ago'. Yes, I did, and did lots of editing, and then I joined again using a new name to edit what I consider to be more controversial topics. It's specifically allowed. I have never edited this or any other article under different names (sockpuppetry). What has happened to WP:Assume good faith? And the only point I am trying to make is that this article is flawed, and I would like it changed. OrangeMarlin says, 'show some proof, then I may support you'. I'll try:
"Natural Selection is not Evolution. Yet ever since the two words have been in common use, the theory of Natural Selection has been employed as a convenient abbreviation for the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, put forward by Darwin and Wallace. This has had unfortunate consequences ...."  - R. A. Fisher The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930) (taken from Valiorium Edition (1999).
Fisher was of course a key man, some say the key man, in the making of the Modern evolutionary synthesis, and this work was absolutely central to it, so this is straight from the horses mouth. What's more, it's the opening sentence of the Preface, which is dated 1929.
By the way, OrangeMarlin. Do you think I could produce that book (which cost me £40 I see) from my library, within ten minutes of your request, if I were 'not a scientist of any sort'. I'm a serious worker in the field, and I think an apology might be due.--Memestream 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to start not feeding you, but you have been accused of edit-warring by two admins so far, User:MastCell and User:Bishonen, both of whom garner much respect on this project.  I didn't actually accuse you of edit-warring, I accused you of not watching WP:NPOV.  At least try to get who is accusing you of what correct.  OK?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but he is objecting to just one ingredient of the theory (natural selection) being used as shorthand for the "Evolution" in his first sentence, and I'm objecting to "Evolution" being used as shorthand for "the theory of evolution by natural selection". Surely you see that my objection is very much like his. Furthermore, if, as he says, "evolution is not natural selection", then natural selection is not evolution (I believe that follows semantically). The fact is, all three terms are often used interchangeably, and it would be better if they were not. --Memestream 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, changes in allele frequencies come from both genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. It is therefore quite correct to say that evolution is not natural selection - instead natural selection is one important mechanism by which evolution occurs. These points are already discussed in detail within the current article. However, other reliable sources will be needed to support your proposal to use an alternative definition of evolution than the one used in this article. You have not provided any such sources, Memestream, so the current definition remains the best option. Tim Vickers 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Citation re 'Evolution is not Natural Selection' 

message: Hey, folks.  May I give you a diversion from the recent weird attempt to rewrite the lead section, by proposing to add the fascinating, encyclopedic book The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins to the list of Further readings section?  
Now, some disclosure: I am currently expanding each and every rendezvous point in this book to illustrate how each pilgrims tale illustrates a particular aspect or theory of evolution (I am at concestor 16 out of 40).  I am afraid a lot of people (including this reviewer despite his positive review) did not understand Dawkins' goal.  The book is very friendly for an average reader, but I feel this is not Dawkins' main goal.  The book was written to be almost like an encyclopedia of evolution, as would be evident if you have read the book (or do a cursory check of what I have written so far in the list of rendezvous points).
I do not think this book is an 'introductory' reading.  But on the other hand, it's not 'advanced' reading, in that an average reader with very little background on evolutionary ideas can easily enjoy it. Fred Hsu 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Fred's suggestion I would like to add two more, not necessarily for the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article.  Both are books by Philop Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism.  One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books.  Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism (and thus clearly relevan to our articles on the controversy) are also superb and accessible inroductions to th philosophy of science and evolutionary theory.  Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Wikipedia article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals.  I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science.  Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory.  I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas.  I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm against it. We already have a book by Dawkins, I don't see what The Ancestor's Tale would add, but it could be interested in an article about the history of life on earth. Both Living With Darwin and Abusing Science could be included in another article, but this is an article about evolution, not about the evolution-creation 'debate'. I think you both made very good suggestion, however I also think that we have to keep this section from becoming too big. -PhDP (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a clarification.  Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale is not about evolution-creation debate.  It is about evolution and all aspects of evolutionary theories.  Please take a cursory look at the Rendezvous Points section in The Ancestor's Tale.  If there is an article to add this book to, as "Further Reading", I believe this article is the place.  This book is comparable to the The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould.  They are different in that Dawkins' book is for the public, and is not organized in a structured way like a text book.  It is a fascinating read for the average person. Fred Hsu 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said the Ancestor's Tale was about the creation-debate, and I maintain that we should keep the Further Reading as small as possible, with the best references we can found. Dawkins has a very specific view of evolution, and he has a book in the Further Reading section. Also it's not really an "Introductory reading" about evolution, nor an "Advanced reading", we would have to create a new subsection for it. -PhDP (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gould has two books, and he has a very specific view of evolution as well (on punctuated equilibrium in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory).  I am not sure your argument makes sense.  Surely the wikipedia article is for the mass. And excluding a new, excellent and accessible book on all topics of evolution simply to keep the reference list short is not reasonable.  I am not familiar with all books listed there.  If there is already one which is similar to and better than Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale (from the point of view of a layman), then I will stop insisting.  Please enlighten me. Fred Hsu 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, it is NOT an introduction to evolution, it's a book about the history of life on earth.  And keeping the list short is very reasonable, wikipedia guidelines are very clear about that, we should be parsimonious about adding references that are not cited in the article (see W:CS and W:EL). It's a little ironic, the Ancestor's Tale is the only book by Dawkins I would recommand, and I think it should be included in the Further Reading list somewhere, but probably there. -PhDP (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  You have a point.  It's main them is about "history of life on earth".  I was about to add it to that article, but then I noticed that the Further Reading section there is identical to the list here, with exactly the same 3 subsections.  Ah.  Sigh. Fred Hsu 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an observation.  Three really.  The first is just to obseve that it is ironic that the modern synthesis is SO well-established among scientists at the same time that that creationism and ID has become this massive industry at least in the US.  But my real observation, the second one, is simply that the modern tynthesis is so well established it is what historians of science call normative science.  The main consequence of this is that the vast majority of scientists, ranging from paleontologists to physical anthropologists to molecular geneticists take a great deal of the modern synthesis for granted as they research very specific focused questions that of course make sense within the framework of the modern synthesis.  And this leads to the third observation: once a theory becomes normative science and its principal assumptions are just taken for granted (i.e. become fact-like if not facts), it frees up a new generation of scientists (who no longer have to do research to test the theory) to speculate more philosophically about how the theory may lead us to rething ourselves and life itself.  I think this is what Gould and Dawkins have in common.  Not that they are/were both popularizers, though that is true, but that since they had no need to prove to themselves as scientists the truth of the modern synthesis, they felt free to wax a little philosophical, and speculate in other directions.  I think that there are many biologists doing normative science who view much of Gould and Dawkin's work as either "just popularizing" or as "premature speculation i.e. they are churning out lots of new hypotheses without taking the time to test any of them and some of the 'hypotheses' may not even really be testable."  I want to suggest that we look at it a third way, that they are philosophizing in a way that is made possible by the work of normative science, although their philosophizing is not itself noarmative scientific research.  The easiest way to treat this would be to expand the articles on Dawkins and on Gould, or even to have detailed articles about some of their books.  But I wonder whether there might be room for an article on what I will call - solely as a placeholder (we can't introduce our own neologisms in actual articles, I am hoping someone can come up with a better and appropriate term) "metatheories of evolution:" far-reaching, at times highly speculative, reflections on the nature of life (really, a pice of cosmology) but done by people who are extremely well-grounded in the normative science.  Just an idea. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there should be long debates about the suitability of books for inclusion. The more the better, within reason, and the above paragraph is excellent reason for inclusion. --Memestream 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Ancestor's Tale]] as a further reading ... and others 

message: Shouldn't there be a paragraph in this article which talks about various different ideas about "rate of change" in evolution?  There is Punctuated equilibrium, Punctuated gradualism, Quantum evolution, Phyletic gradualism, Gradualism#Geology and biology, and various things in between (Punctuated equilibrium#Criticism)?  Perhaps there should be a main article to summarize all of these.  Fred Hsu 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this at the end of the speciation section, since the essence of Punct Eq for me was a linkage between speciation and evolution. Tim Vickers 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created a new "Category:Rate of evolution" and will be adding this category to the above articles.  Any objections? Fred Hsu 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me. •Jim62sch• 13:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very interesting category.  Go for it.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Excellent idea. But do at least write a stub at Rate of evolution that clarifies what would go into that category. Horizontal gene transfer ? WAS 4.250 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on evolutionary rate of change 

message: One of the reasonable and readable daughter articles to this article has recently been expanded by a factor of 3 (from 10-12 Kb to 35 Kb in about 2 months). Unfortunately, many of the edits were not of particularly high quality and I have the impression that it is now being "guarded" by a group of people with questionable motives. I believe that this article should be reverted to its status about 2 months ago, and that select material from the last 2 months should be introduced, after it is carefully vetted and carefully written. Comments? --Filll 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] 

message: I would do it myself, if only my Danish were good enough; but the article has, "gone to the creationists", so to speak. Its not too bad, but help with parts on speciation would be appreciated. Regards--THobern 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undskyld, jeg kan ikke tale dansk. Tim Vickers 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with the Danish article 

message: From www.conservapedia.org's main page:
:Article of the Month::
:Many scientists have noted the shortcomings and implausibility of the Theory of Evolution. Learn what Wikipedia does not inform you about the theory of evolution.
...Yep, looks like the encyclopedia right-wing nutjobs can edit is still up to its same old tricks. Adam Cuerden talk 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to hand it to them though, if you wanted to write a gibbering, ham-fisted parody of the attacks on evolution, you'd struggle to do better than Conservapedia's evolution article.  It's got everything - even Hitler!  I'll certainly be forwarding it around to my colleagues - it'll make their afternoons.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now that you made me look, I have to share with my my favorite passage from "conservapedia" (funny, they drop the "wiki" but it is still a wiki..." (this doesn't have to do with evolution): "Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly resent these leftist barbs at a heroic leader who calls us to march in lock-step towards our homeland's glorious and victorious future. Tim Vickers 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an aside.... 

message: There are Y-chromosome sequencing projects being done to trace the line of male heritage for some human families.  There is a practical application of the fact that mammalian Y-chromosomes accumulate mutations (harmful or not.)--Minasbeede 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side note to "recombination" 

message: It doesn't have to be that a particular beneficial mutation immediately confers an evolutionary advantage on the offspring of the parent in which that mutation first occurred.  Only when the mutation becomes advantageous would that allelle begin to predominate: it could lurk for generations, unpreferred.  Clearly, nothing in nature is going to make beneficial mutations occur when (and precisely when, and only when) they confer an advantage.  I'd think that this is such common knowledge among those in the field that they can find multiple references to it.  I'm not one of those individuals. --Minasbeede 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary fitness 

message: As an example of speciation is this an adequate and/or accurate example. I wanted to include it in the intro version in the speciation section. Obviously it will be a creationist magnet if it is not too solid --Random Replicator 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Creationists have nothing against natural selection and speciation. rossnixon 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps supersaturate the point giving a number of references in birds, insects, plants, fish, amphibia, etc. and highlight one example in the text. I think you are correct to push the emphatic nature that speciation has been observed (despite the arguments about ambiguity as noted above). Biological and ecological speciation has been observed and measured in various ways (morphology,genetics, behavior,etc.). I think the biological species concept is considered a feature of the modern synthesis so that would be consistent with the rest of the article.GetAgrippa 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can not seem to find the primary sources. There are numerous articles stating that speciation has been directly validated; but none that cite specific research documents. Is this a credible source to use as a ref/citation to support the above statement?  or here . 98% of the Introduction article is general knowledge (as it should be). This however, needs serious validation --- I need some help here. --Random Replicator 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Define "species" and identify what counts as evidence. Some define species and acceptable evidence in ways that rule out all possible examples (a population difference too great to occur naturally within the scientific era; yet actual observation by scientists is insisted upon). There is a one celled species artificially created from a human cell and maintained by scientific methods for research purposes that we have an article on. I forget its name at the moment. WAS 4.250 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are already citations for this in the article, see references 103 for a list and the specific example of reference 106. Tim Vickers 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I just copy/pasted that reference as you cited it into the Introduction to Evolution under the species section. I like the Mayr example as it has more impact on high school students than would speciation in say something like bacteria or even plants. Just didn't want to be embarrased later should it have already been ripped apart in a more recent publication. So I thought I would run it by the experts. --Random Replicator 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Cichlid article makes it seem both that there is a high likelihood that something specific in Mayr's article is wrong or obsolete and that there should be some more contemporary stories that would support your point. It also would show science-on-the-move. DCDuring 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  The phrase "greatly debated" in the Cichlid entry was not exactly support for the rock solid example I was seeking!--Random Replicator 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a Science article that I remember Pennisi talking about Cichlids and other examples.Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 1374. Speciation Standing in Place. Elizabeth Pennisi. Regards. GetAgrippa 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help --- Speciation Question 

message: In the mutation section could there be a parenthetic explanation of why cancer is (may be) a short-term cost of a higher rate of mutation?  I'd guess that some (most?) forms of cancer are the result of a mutation and that the recurrence of such cancers (that is, the same cancer, which indicates it's the same mutation that has initiated the cancer) in diverse individuals indicates there is an inherited characteristic making that mutation far more probable than a random mutation.  Some nudge from some agent (radiation, chemical) can alter the DNA in a cell in a way that causes that cancer.  I'd guess that for some few forms of cancer (but maybe lots) the nature of the change is known.  That is, the un-mutated DNA and the mutated DNA have both been sequenced and the differences noted.  In some manner the reason the mutation is likely has been determined.  
Since I'm guessing my request is for someone to add a few words that provide facts.  I haven't looked: maybe a link into the cancer article would do this. --Minasbeede 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cancer has little relevance to evolution since the individuals old enough to suffer from cancer are past reproductive age. Tim Vickers 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cancer is indicated in the article as a cost of evolution.  The same propensity for mutation that contributes to evolution also (apparently, according to the article) also contributes to cancer.  I'm not advocating that nor disputing it, but it is in the article.  the request was for a short explanation of the origin of the "cost," since right now it's just an assertion (doubtless properly cited.)  The article referenced above seems to also say aging is a cost of evolution, or at least that cancer and aging are related. --Minasbeede 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cancer is most often sporadic but there is evidence of evolution as well. Mutations in the BRCA1 gene are thought to be the most common predisposing factor in familial breast and ovarian cancer. There is evidence of positive natural selection on these mutations. Half of all cancers involve p53 mutations, and there is evidence of positive selection there as well. In fact, a number of diseases are associated with genetic mutations that have been positively selected. There is a cost benefit that effects early and late phases of life. There is also a strong link of in utero environmental influence and the development of chronic disease later in life. Natural selection acts on all stages and phases of life.GetAgrippa 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aging itself evolved. W.D. Hamilton's: "The Moulding of Senescence by Natural Selection" addresses that (an old but seminal reference). It talks about the forces of natural selection over the entire life history. Natural selection acts on the gene, individual, deme,population, etc. and is measured as the outcome reproductive success. Natural selection acts to influence aging, and the aged have already reproduced. GetAgrippa 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short-term cost: cancer 

message: Just think this should be added to the article. According to a scientific poll done by the Journal nature about 90% of all "greater" scientists in the world do not believe in a god, and do support the theory of evolution. 
The statistics come from the journal nature, which repeated the same famous survey that psychologist James H. Leuba first made in 1914, when he randomly selected 1000 "great scientists" (scientists with a masters degree or higher) and found that 65% of scientists did not believe in a god. Leuba repeated this same experiment again 20 years later, and found that the number had risen to about 75%.
In 1996 the journal Nature (one of the most prominent scientific journals of all time) repeated this famous survey, except included far more scientists, including every scientists in the national academy of sciences (a group that includes the best scientists from around the world). And found that amongst scientists with a masters degree or higher, only 7% believed in a god. . With biological scientists being at the lowest, with only 5% of scientists in this field believing in a god. 
I just feel its an interesting fact that should be included
: I feel it's in an interesting fact too, but it shouldn't be in this article. Maybe in the atheism article. I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page. thx1138 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it an interesting statistic but it could be construed a non sequitur if your are trying to make a point. There is an article that Fill wrote addressing the overwhelming support for evolution (I am not sure what the final title ended up), and it seems the statistic would fit there nicely. GetAgrippa 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Level of support for evolution. ornis (t) 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! after all the debate the title remained. Thanks Ornis! Fill does a great job creating articles. I especially enjoyed his bees and toxic chemicals article (what happened to bees and intoxication or alcohol title?). GetAgrippa 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned comment regarding atheism and science 

message: The word is used in "Mechanisms."  The problem with the word is that it implies volition or choice (like "I favor chocolate over strawberry.")  The favoring that occurs isn't in any way the result of volition or choice.  Those that understand evolution almost certainly understand this.  The problem is the confusion the word can cause in those who don't understand.  It's almost Lamarckian to them. 
Do I have a better word?  No. If I did I'd suggest it. --Minasbeede 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "increases the prevalence"?  To my mind "favors" is preferable because it conveys the idea of the "choice" between individuals made by natural selection more straightforwardly than alternatives.  Sometimes accuracy makes understanding something quite simple actually more difficult.  Consider how helpful the shorthand expression "selfish gene" is compared to a full, mechanistic explanation of what's being meant (then again, possibly not the best example c.f. Mary Midgley!).  Anyway, if you do change the text, please bear in mind that the more sensible replacement to you might not be the same as for others.  :-)  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Favors" 

message: I've temporarily full-protected the page due to the Genesis vandal. It's set to expire in three days, if anyone wants to edit it until then, just ask an admin to make the changes.
It was semi-protected before, and yet we had two users with the same modus operandi appearing one after the other when one got blocked, and that means there must have been some advance preparation. Better to go this way.
In three days, someone will have to restore semi-protection. Adam Cuerden talk 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary Page Protection 

message: We are seeking peer review on Introduction to Evolution. The appropriate link is on that article's discussion page, as well as  here. Since this article was created as a mandate from this discussion page to eliminate the constant complaints over complexity in the main entry; I would hope that all of you will contribute to this review process. The challenge of course, is to be accurate, yet maintain readability. Your suggestions will hopefully be based on that philosophy. Thank you in advance for your support on this project. --Random Replicator 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link: Wikipedia:Peer_review#Introduction_to_evolution. ornis (t) 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are hoping for peer review from the many experts on the subject; clearly this is the place to ask. Any suggestions, comments, criticisms, or "God Willing" - compliments would truly be appreciate as well as increase the probability of GA status on the article. You will be there --- right? If not - let me know and I'll solicite help on the creationist page.  --Random Replicator 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've received an excellent suggestion from the Creationist site. Replace the text with "God Determines Truth". I decided to go with it. Thanks!--Random Replicator 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I just reverted (via a slip of the mouse, mistakenly tagged as vandalism) to remove a section on the social effects of evolution.  It appeared to be questionable scholarship, focusing primarily on Nazism and Social Darwinism.  Being that it was largely a collection of quotes woven together to make a point, it might have also been original research or improper synthesis.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources were not reliable, subject already covered. No reason to include. Tim Vickers 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social effects section 

message: Certian aspects of this article should not be explained as fact when there are so many variables that are simply out of our grasp to understand. Science is about gathering facts.  No hypothesis can be stated as fact unless it is given substantial evidence to be proven to be anything beyond that.  This article should show more that this subject is debatable.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.51.134 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is debatable is explained in the article, what has been proved is also explained. For more details on this topic, please see Evolution as theory and fact Tim Vickers 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is quite true Tim. Let's take a simple example from early on, where it says "these traits are the expression of genes". What do you understand that to mean? What exactly do you take the word 'gene' to mean? Dawkins has argued for a definition of gene that is wider, but in general a gene is taken to be, I suggest, a unit of 'coding' DNA capable of making a protein (or actually several with alternate splicing of exons forcing us to dump the 'one gene one protein' idea), and gene expression is taken to mean protein production. So how are traits the result of gene expression? Is there not a missing 'magical' step here, at least so far as this article goes? The missing link lies in the field of morphology, of gene cascades, of promoters, insulators, enhancers; of positional effects, epigenetics, RNA and so on, which is a huge area that is still largely mysterious.  The weakness of the modern synthesis, according to many, was it's failure to incorporate morphology. I do not doubt that traits are produced by our genome, but I think they are still some way from being explained. Until you can explain how genes make us as we are, how can it be right to say bluntly "traits are the expression of genes" as if that were a definite fact with a fully understood mechanism? Where even are we to find the definitive version of the modern synthesis. Huxley's "The Modern Synthesis" leaves room I think for Orthogenesis, and certainly invokes positional effects. He talks of genes "achieving dominance with time" and other such things that are not talked about by the others. Many of the other contributors to the Modern synthesis, say absolutely nothing about biological mechanisms (Fisher especially, who was famously obscure) and some talk only of Speciation and population genetics. Schmalhausen's 'Factors in Evolution' is subtitled 'The Theory of Stabilizing Selection', and actually owes a lot to his Ukranian past and Lysenkoism. Was it part of the 'Modern Synthesis'. Dobzhanski says it was very important, yet Schmalhausen wasn't published in the West until 1948, and that was pretty much after the synthesis was supposed to have been achieved! Was there in fact ever a synthesis? I have doubts. There were big arguments between gradualists and mutationists, and saltationists, and they ended when the gradualists died. Were the problems really resolved? I seriously don't think so. It may not be PC, or convenient to those of us who don't want to expose the weak points to creationists, but it's the truth. --Memestream 11:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no missing "magical process."  It is true that the article leaves out much current work in molecular genetics, and also mathematical population genetics, that deepens our understanding of the processes of evolution.  But this article cannot include everything.  What we should instead be doing is developing linked articles on population genetics, molecular genetics, embryology, and evo-devo. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: I've just realised that some editors here are not taking part at Neo-Darwinism where my real troubles lie. I only started working on that article to try to sort out problems with Modern synthesis which had a redirect that I considered not properly dealt with. Now my new page is up for deletion.
GettaGrippa: You don't seem to have commented there, and if you look at the talk you will see I have, in response to a suggestion, taken examples of useage of the term from many Wikipedia articles - not to cite of course, but just to demonstrate the problem of confused useage I'm trying to put across. One of the articles is evo-devo, which you talked about to me, and it supports everything I am saying. Can you perhaps help me persuade others that Neo-Darwinism is a respectable term used to refer to modern theory, not necessarily the modern synthesis. --Memestream 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see the problem Memestream. You my friend have inadvertently stepped in a stinky using weasel words that are an alarm to anyone with experience with the article."Truth" often refers to Christ. You also cited an ID reference which is another alarm, also beware primary sources as that is generally considered a no no. The internet is a wonderful resource but you need to be cautious and find excellent peer-reviewed journals or qualified books. You have also synthesized an argument from the literature, which many have unconsciously done (I'm guilty and I was justly corrected). TimVickers provide two excellent references concerning the historical perspective. I don't remember Gould using the term neoDarwinism except in historical context in Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Dawkins I don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if he misused it in context of his audience (popular culture). I agree the term is often misused, but a search of Pubmed, Highwire, and Science doesn't produce a quagmire of confusion. What are your concerns about the revert to the original article before your additions? As an aside, I can appreciate your concerns over the perceived paranoia from creationist, but it is a concern that I have grown to appreciate. I have often wondered does it influence NPOV, but creationist have used unethical means and are a major frustration and distraction. Don't take it personal. I once made a posit and I was perceived as a creationists (say what?)much to my surprise and chagrin. Regards GetAgrippa 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a hoot Fill!! I bet Orangemarlin came close to a documented case of human combustion. Hee, hee. I've missed you guys. Both of you are stellar editors. Regards to you both!! GetAgrippa 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The seismological record of his response was publicised by the Russian government as evidence of a covert US nuclear test. Tim Vickers 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROLFMAO.  That was good. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Darwinism - help please 

message: In response to TimVicker's friendly approach on my talk page, I have written a long reply there on what I call the problem of 'semantic inversion'. I believe that the problems on Neo-Darwinism as well as on Evolution and Modern synthesis arise because some secondary sources have taken material out of context, for example taking George Romanes use of the term in a sense that he did not intend. This is a very real problem of spreading 'bad memes' and, as I have tried to explain on my talk, not about pushing POV. 
I will not attempt to make my case here in full, but basically I have tried to explain that an article on Animal that opened with the sentence "A dog is an animal" would be very very wrong. The sentence itself, which might well be found in many 'authoritative' sources, is not wrong, it is a matter of context and semantics. The semantics arises in that 'animal' is a category that includes 'dog' but of course the reverse is not true. I suggest that neo-Darwinism is a category with a meaning that includes both the historical use and the modern use, in that, quite simply, it means "new-Darwin-like" and Romanes was using it in a current sense when he used it, and did not intend to define the term in terms of anything but 'current'. Once you see the semantic problem that is leading to the misinterpretation then the problem of different definitions disappears.
I suggest (on my talk page) that 'authoritative sources' have to be filtered, by wikipedia editors, for this semantic error, to which they are prone, because their writers do not always have the in-depth overview that is needed to avoid falling into the trap. I also suggest that such filtering is not OR, and that this issue of filtering, and how we do it with careful regard to semantics, while avoiding accusations of 'selective primary sourcing' could become a topic for much discussion. Personally I think that 'lots of primary sources, from lots of editors' is a good direction to go. Other editors might like to read what I wrote there and reconsider. I am interested to know whether people can understand what I am saying regarding 'semantic inversion', and my hope is that if they do they might start to see these dificult pages, and my approach to them, in a whole new light. Please don't quote OR or POV or such things at me glibbly. I do understand the rules, so far as they go, and am not out to break them deliberately or create a war. I hope my explanation goes deeper, showing that the rules need more careful interpretation. --Memestream 12:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Semantic Inversion' the real problem on these pages