Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 5

message: I would like to request that we apply for G/A status. If two  more agree, could someone with the skills make it happen? --Random Replicator 14:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It's a lot better referenced now. Adam Cuerden talk 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm ... have we fallen off the radar or is it still not ready. Its gone through some serious high level revision by some talented editors; no one want to second the notion for a re-try? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again ---Again 

message: Go for FA. This article might have a chance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without some additional work; see below. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disgree. It is close especially as it is an introduction to the topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]]

message: This is a well-written and long-suffering introductory article.  I am happy to pass it to GA status, though there are a number of minor points I would quibble over before it would rise to FA, such as (1) the limited mention of organisms other than animals (read:plants), and (2) the limiting of the Genetic section to Mendel's work, without noting significant later contributors like Morgan and McClintock who paved the way for understanding mutation, a key generator of genetic diversity.  In all, it looks as though the problems have been cleared up, and it's nice to be able to pass an article like this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that this recognition comes almost exactly on the article's first birthday: the first version was written by Filll on 8 December 2006. Particular thanks to Filll and Random Replicator - but others as well - for creating this article, and for nursing it through its childhood and sometimes troubled adolescence! So: anyone know anything about plants, or about more recent genetics work? Snalwibma (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A year has past since the three of us burned up a weekend to resolve the issue of complexity that plagued the main article. A fitting birthday present I should say! I hope we managed to fill the gap between the simple and complex version. I see my bias for animals showed through. Needless to say there are numerous examples in the plant world; an easy fix to that problem. I am not sure about Featured Status. There may be a bias against elevating transition articles to such a level. It needs to be FA. Evolution as a topic is under constant criticism from the general public. There is a war being fought in the US public school system over the very nature of science. We as educators of the topic are almost obligated to obtained Featured Article status.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment about FA status; considering the number of 'The Simpsons' episode FA articles — You Only Move Twice, Homer's Phobia, A Streetcar Named Marge —  I wouldn't worry about there being a bias against a 'transition' or an 'introduction to ...' article; just call it Evolution: the first season. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Pass 

message: Filll, I'm not sure when the "summation box" disappeared. I agree, it was a very clear summation of the evolutionary process. Stripped of all the necessary supporting evidence; the concept is easy as that graphic showed. I was never "in charge" of graphics; so I'm not sure where it went or how to put it back. I was very disappointed when the "tree" disappeared. Nothing says evolution like The Tree. If not the original, perhaps a different, more colorful one can be located. There were several criticism of our excessive use of graphics. A position on which I disagree. I spent too many hours as a kid just looking at the pictures in World Book Encyclopedia; not to realize our audience will benefit from the visual information. Would you care to reinsert just to see how it effects the overall organization?
:The lack of plants is a glaringly obvious problem that I totally over-looked.  Are there any specific examples of plant evolution that anyone could suggest that we could work into the document?
:Expanding to include other players in the field of genetics? Can we do the name dropping without bogging down in the need to provide overly technical explanations. That has been our biggest challenge. Covering such a huge concept without losing sight of our mission of accuracy, clarity... yet simplicity. 
:Shall we address the two primary concerns --- no plants --- --- insufficient recognition of other geneticist --- then plead for Featured Status. If Homer can do it --- so can we! --Random Replicator (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For plants, we should mention the origin of modern wheat from wild wheat, domestication of corn, and maybe list a brief pedigree of some orchid cultivar, like the "Dusty Miller" ladyslipper.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a big sea of white between the contents and the side panel about the Evolution/Biology series box. Will the summary box fit there? Also, the china plant could easily replace the fish as an example of observed speciation. Could the wheat be tied into the section on artificial selection.
 
Filll I read the original article  on the great wall study. Apparently, a significant difference in genetic composition as a result of disruption of gene flow. However, I don't understand how such a structure could disrupt wind and/or insect pollination. Am I missing the obvious? Can't a bee just fly over the wall? Too much fermented fruit thus intoxicated -- Bees and toxic chemicals? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not being a biologist, I do not know how this happened. Obviously, the barrier was enough to stop them from cross-fertilizing, and then to evolve down different paths. I guess no one knows for sure how it happened, but they can guess. Maybe this disrupted the wind sufficiently (orographic barrier) to cause trouble. I know that a small structure can cause a substantial disruption in air flow and precipitation (measurements of rainfall at sea from ships are quite difficult for that reason). Maybe bees or other pollinators did not feel like attempting to fly over the barrier. Maybe crawling insects did the pollination and they did not feel like crawling over the wall? I am just guessing here. But it is sure field evidence of something, and demonstrates that evolution can happen in a fairly short time, since we know pretty well when the wall was built. And the species on the two sides of the wall before the wall was built were probably the same. If there was bird pollination, it is hard to imagine the birds not flying over. Bugs; well some bugs do not fly that high I guess, although dragonflies are pretty amazing fliers (they migrate for winter).--Filll (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When formating; does having a wide screen make a difference. If so ... what size screen do you cater to? I want the Summary Box back! I'm seeing a big space which it would fit into nicely on a wide screen. That graphic and many of the others are still visible in edit mode... they were just hidden as alternatives should we reconsider their use. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Darwin observed in orchids, a relationship that developed with insects that insures successful pollination of the plant. Orchids, he noted, have developed a variety of elaborate structures to attract insects and guarantee that the pollen sticks to their body so that it may be transported to the female flower of another orchid. Despite the appearance of complexity, the flower parts in the orchid are derived from ordinary flower parts that usually perform different functions. Darwin proposed that the orchids do not represent the work of an ideal engineer; but were “rigged” from a pre-existing parts.
Added this to the Darwin section to beef up our weakness on plants. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With a citation needed tag added  .... maybe not yet! --Random Replicator (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orchids 

message: :::: Figured out the problem: The original was "While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, ---  as the citation supported" which was later edited by someone to tone-down the article --- without addressing the citation problem the edit created.  I say, put the 99.9 back in and forget the "tone" --Random Replicator (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that definitely fixed the problem.  Thanks, AlphaEta 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation tag 

message: We will see what happens.--Filll (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, the nay sayers will provide constructive criticism. The G/A process really resulted in dramatic improvements. Lately we've been catching minor problems --- if there are major concerns; it would be nice to be able to address them. It has been a challenging process; at least we have gotten beyond the raging debates over content (Amazingly) --- now it most likely is going to be technical issues and formating --- both beyond my skills. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trigger pulled

message: Can anyone correct the template concern that was raised  on the featured article discussion page . I'm not sure I understand the problem; much less how to fix it. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Wikipedia is strange about citing the obvious but if you state that the sun rises in the east you'd better find four sources: one to reference the sun, two to reference the sphericity of the earth, three to reference the Cartesian compass points, and four to reference the obvious - that the sun rises in the east. I suggest going for over-kill and have an in-line citation for every sentence. Cheers Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and thereby destroy the immediacy and readability of what is meant to be an introductory article. Snalwibma (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and completely agree but if you would like this article to bear the stamp of FA and thereby gain the privilege of appearing on Wikipedia's main page, it is probably unavoidable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's compare. Introduction to general relativity is about 70K, and has 48 footnotes, or about 1.46K per cite. This article is about 59K and has 41 footnotes. We have only 1.44K per cite, so relative to another FA introductory article, we have more cites per K of article (this is ignoring the size of the footnotes themselves etc, but gives a rough idea). So we are not particularly undercited at all, by this standard.--Filll (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm currently apply templates to citations ... which would have been nice to know about ... all need to be the same and by the way there is a template!!! Oh well.  I'm not getting much out of this F/A critique so far.  Other than the  randomness of some citations ... which I am fixing and the profound insight that we need to rewrite cause it sucks ... but they can't help cause they don't speak english so good. I still waiting for the level of critique we got during the GA process.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey guys ... I worked on formating citations all day. The are all consistent ... they may be wrong ... but they are consistently wrong!--Random Replicator (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 42 ways of formatting citations, and they're ALL right. I'd a look and you seemed to be using "cite book" etc. but the Wyhe ref differed, so I automatically used this tool to tweak it – and lo and behold, it's not quite what you've been doing. Ooops. Anyway, the tool's great if you've an url or isbn number, or pubmed ref, and want the "cite x". template. Even when using Template:Citation to get linking harvard inline refs to different page numbers, it's a great way to put in the isbn number and get the rest typed ready to put it into another template. Useful in future ;) Feel free to revert the change I made. ... dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you are right. I'm trying to be all things to all people. Feel like a man plugging holes on a sinking ship! However, I did add few cool references, one on flower selection by echolocation in bats! I was trying to find good "readable" secondary sources to cite; such as PBS and National Geographic; thus avoiding the PubMed  abstracts that are impossible to understand and which no one can access anything other than an abstract. However, I must confess... I have become somewhat blinded by the Wikipedia star. Thanks for bringing me back to my senses!--Random Replicator (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Citation Template for text: 
This is way I plugged in for the first reference in the article. Why doesn't the isbn number link????? Randon Replicator --- don't think I'm logged in. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have completed through ref 19 on the http sources and have done all the books. Thanks for the tool link to the templates. I see no problems with formating so maybe that issue will be off the table when I finish the rest of them. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Template 

message: Have tried to clarify the uniformitarian section, imo Gould's statement is clearly not "anti-Darwinian", if further evidence is needed see  .. dave souza, talk 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nicely done. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you get a chance; would you edit the LaMarck revision in a way that most accurately addresses the views of Darwin and LaMarck. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe all it needs is the addition of a reference (!). Snalwibma (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Punk eek

message: As discussed in some detail by Eldredge, much of Darwin's inspiration came from Evidence of common descent#Evidence from geographical distribution, and I'd suggest a brief section about this at the head of the #Evidence for evolution section which I could draft. Comments? .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence from geographical distribution

message: The opening sentence "Evolution is the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms that results in the emergence of new species" seems to me to be open to the common misconception that evolution is about organisms changing, when it's the accumulation of differences in offspring that leads to the change – my suggestion would be "Evolution is the accumulation of variations in succeeding generations of organisms that results in changes to the population, and the emergence of new species." The aim would be to cover aspects like peppered moth evolution, where there are no changes (beyond the possible original dark morph as found at the start of the nineteenth century – the evolution consists in changes in the proportion of the dark or the light morph in each generation of moths. ... dave souza, talk 15:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any improvement would be appreciated; especially if it involves potential misconceptions. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes or variations?

message: Hello all! I noticed that you seem to be having some trouble over at FAC. What can I do to help? Awadewit | talk 14:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problems... ??? Ahhh you must mean the bashing statements over prose and "overall style" not being at F/A standards!!!! It reads beautifully to me; but I'm so over the top biased that my perception is meaningless. If you care to give it one more read through  to identify  any  of those troublesome style "prose" issues; I would indeed be most grateful. At present, I am defending; but, honestly am not all the confident that it is as good as I seem to think. Clearly, some on the discussion page do not consider it "well written".  If you can spare the time; at least if you say it sucks --- by god I will In Fact, know that it sucks!--Random Replicator (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been and will likely continue to be the most problematic section. I think I will hold off on this in hopes that someone else will take a stab at it!--Random Replicator (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I take the blame for the introductions current condition!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've even tweaked it some more!!! It is evolving faster than pathogenic bacteria --Random Replicator (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He's Back!!!! Dino must have gotten lost in my citation edits! --Random Replicator (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wonderful! I hope you don't mind my little rearrangement so that the dinosaur appears immediately at the top of the page. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *There's always Darwin's own tree, seen here. Awadewit | talk 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the original tree; before I saw this note. I do not feel strongly either way. I'll leave this un-struck and see how other s feel.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I placed it at the end; where it does read better. Tweaked it a bit to make it fit; but may need someone to read it over. --Random Replicator (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is better. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I expanded the section to include a more comprehensive explanation of DNA.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good that its finally done or its done good!--Random Replicator (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I knew that when I put it in. Rather than opening up a very big can of worms; I thinkI would rather let the children be in ignorant bliss! So I deleted the cataclysmic part.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More tweaking might be necessary. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Second attempt Tweaked ... in fact expanded significantly in hopes of allowing the children to discover the really cool link to the demise of the dinosaurs.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea! Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:   Snalwibma  :) where are you! --Random Replicator (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I gave it a shot. Darwin is in the right place at least. I'm not going to check it because I see the concerns coming!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In deleting the reference to the five cataclysmic events; which really is not necessary to address--- perhaps we also solved this concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - I still think that the article doesn't make it clear whether catastrophism is a viable theory. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Second attempt! Involved a major rewrite of the entire paragraph;thus and will require cleaning up my typical grammatical creativity. I hope it removed those nagging loose ends.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much clearer. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I switched to the word gene; which has been explained and "I think" is suitable here. The term allele is defined in a following section.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if this is accurate! Do you know for sure? Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be safe, hold off on the check and we will wait for a second opinion!--Random Replicator (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Better? Maybe... --Random Replicator (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I opted to change the term gamete to simply sperm and egg.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Cleaned it up a bit; by being consistent with the term allele as opposed to bouncing back and forth!--Random Replicator (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Assuming its accurate - I don't really know) Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is accurate; just not bogged down in specificity. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am pretty sure I cleared up any potential confusion.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I don't know, but perhaps it is just me. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has been accused of being non-wikipedic in the past --- too text book in nature. It is tempting to hit the delete key; except Filll has grown really fond of the mice in the picture. I've tweeked it some more.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It reads better and I linked meiosis in the article. A very difficult idea for a one liner; thus more work may be needed.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I would urge a "because...." clause to state the idea as clearly as possible. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The why part has to do with  statistical probabilities an the assumption that all alleles have an equal chance of being "picked" during the formation of the egg or sperm. Also, that each sperm or egg has an equal chance of meeting. If there are two alleles B=(Black) and b(white) and neither are favored during sperm/egg production and each eggs and sperm have an equal chance of meeting then the frequencies will never change. Formula: where B=.75% of the gene pool and b=25% of the gene pool, and where  BB=B2 Homozygous black and Bb heterozygous = 2Bb and bb homozygous white=b2: then .752 + 2(.75)(.25) + .252 = 1.0 .  .5625 + .375 + .062 = 1.0 That represents the distribution of the alleles in the gene pool until the end of time; assuming no evolution. Maybe this section can't be made "introductory". There have been request to delete it in the past.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I tried; perhaps others may wish to review my edits on this one. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of these statements needs "because" clauses - I would not assume your readers can make the inferences these sentences require. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was so much clearer when it was presented as a list. The concise separation of each factor that leads to changes in gene frequencies eliminated the "blurring" that is apparent when it is all muddled in a single paragraph. I'm starring at it as it stands and thinking I will likely only make it worse. Lets see if someone else will attack it with a fresh perspective.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Expanded in an attempt to better explain.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I cleared it up ... but someone else please read it over since it required substantial modification --Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Random Replicator (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ???? I made an attempt to address the over-emphasis on speciation. However, I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to satisfy everyone/anyone  on the  intro.  I thought to steal some from the Evolution article introduction, but was quickly reminded of why this one was needed - it is bloated with scientific terminology and major concepts in an effort to be all things to all people. This is my 10,000th edit ... of the opening sentence! Someone else needs to put a green check here. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No... I'll take the blame for its current condition!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done--Random Replicator (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done--Random Replicator (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I attempted a transition in my introduction rewrite.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: --Random Replicator (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done--Random Replicator (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  --Random Replicator (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've spent a lot of energy on this. First by moving Darwin to the Darwin section, then attempting to rewrite with my limited skills. I'm sure it is not a green check status but it does address some of your concerns.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Comment: Interestingly, I have had email exchanges with Dr. Walter Salzburger, a cichlid guru; who I was seeking confirmation on the general accuracy of that section. He is to provide me with more current examples from his studies in Lake Victoria cichlids. But until then, I am open for any picture with strong visual appeal.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Its a fish --- a cichlid ---perhaps --- a pretty blue one ---from Africa or a continent shaped very much like Africa ---will it work?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done --Random Replicator (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thank you Awadewit for coming to help us; if anyone is an expert on FACs, it is Awadewit!!! I am mildly disturbed over the continuing loss of pictures, including the dinosaur picture and the phylogenic tree. However, many reviewers did not like either of these, and in fact hardly any other pictures or images of any kind. Hearing that allele appears way into the article, with no definition now, makes me cringe.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will keep adding things as I read the article. I am at the MLA conference right now, but that is ending, so I can hopefully spend a little time on this article while I am recuperating from listening to several days of academic papers on literature. :) It's a nice break. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know these list well! I'm always afraid to ask... if this is just the tip of the iceberg? I'm not sure if I can begin my line by line attack today; however, I can assure you no concern here will go un-addressed. The loss of the dinosaur picture must have been an error when editing. I had to move heaven and earth to get permission for that one. I have no formating skills; so could someone please replace it! I loved the tree as well, it was our first image. I have no problem swapping Darwin for it; we are heavy in portraits anyway... thou I like the young version and consider it a major improvement over the demonic one next door. I feel so much better, thanks so much for your support! --Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No iceberg - this is it. Awadewit | talk 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC problems 

message: Would it be possible to get two checks of approval  for each item on the list. Perhaps, one below the other. That way we can be in agreement that the concern has been addressed and is "well done". I would feel much more confident that my attempts to correct the problem didn't simply make it worse. If there are additional concerns by others; perhaps they could be edited directly into the list as well. I made such a mess of the F/A page in  attempting to address concerns;  I think the "green check"  which I must say is rather cool, will keep things in order here. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow a green check mark . I did not know.--Filll (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need a red X for the ones I just can seem to fix! --Random Replicator (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah but of course:  --Random Replicator (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List 

message: What's tghe summary doing at the end of the article? Shouldn't it be at the top? PiCo (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: I rather doubt that they could be considered a reliable source.  Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea I was getting bored typing to myself so I thought I would throw that one in to see if I was alone on this page. Of course the section cited was absolute text book perfect; and one could argue that the information on that site is as accurate and reliable as PBS or National Geographic or any other secondary reference site. It would make for an interesting debate as to what constitutes legitimate secondary sourcing! Sadly, it has the most organized and accurate definition section I have seen. Better than most textbooks --- I guess it is their perspective on the complexity issue that make them inappropriate? Take a look  the inter-connection of terms and organization is flawless. I failed to identify a single definition that fell short of accuracy. Maybe I will sneak in a Ken Ham citation later to see if you are still paying attention! --Random Replicator (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a page full of comments to the FAC, but I noticed that there's a section for that here.  Should I leave them there, or add them here?  Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if you don't object I will copy/paste here as well. I've already made a mess of the FA page! Thanks for another list!!!! You addressed serious concerns, I will do my best to rectify them.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged it with the one above.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider second checking if you agree with the modifications?--Random Replicator (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been very busy editing this evening, if those that are concerned review the commentaries above... especially those that I am awaiting a second check (opinion on) Thanks so much for all the suggestions for improvement...... seriously :)  --Random Replicator (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISCID? 

message: Concern copied from above: 
 Awadewit: I'm still not enamored with the lead. (I know that leads are incredibly difficult to write, especially for articles such as this one which cover a wide array of topics, but I still think it can be better.) The editors seem to have decided to go for the "introductory" type of lead which doesn't try to allude to everything in the article. This is fine - it is more elegant. However, I still think that the lead focuses too much on the study of evolution and not enough on evolution itself. I would pick three to five key concepts about evolution that you think the reader needs to know and introduce them in the lead. (natural selection, for example?) 
* Comment: This section receives the most criticism; not always as tactfully done as this one. I have reworked it somewhat since this statement; but, I am 100% sure it still will not be adequate to the task. Herein lies my confusion on the mission. Should we be attempting to address the term "evolution" or should we be providing an over-view of the article on evolution? This lead is a compromise of both. Now a word of caution. "You can't see the forest for the trees". The tendency has been to over-explain to counteract accusations of "errors of omission" by defining every exception. The finch dialog in the above post, to some degree, serves as an example. In the introduction at least, there has to be an element of generalization; otherwise, the reader will be over-whelmed with detail and merely walk away confused. This concern is what started this article. The  extensive amount of  defense against  errors of omission  made the "real" article evolution impossible to read (although it has improved with recent edits).  To balance accuracy, with readability, in a introduction to such an enormous concept may be out of everyone's reach. I am somewhat biased; but, personally I am comfortable with the lead as it stands.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *My criticism still stands: the introduction discusses the study of evolution too much. It should focus on the theory of evolution itself. The discoverers are less important than the discovery! (By the way, I agree with everything you have said above - that is not my problem with the introduction. My problem is that it doesn't do what you want it to.) Awadewit | talk 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *There are kinks to work out, but they are small - they are at the level of prose. This is, in my opinion, a much better starting point. Awadewit | talk 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #1 Line by Line Veto --- Introduction. 

message: Concern copied from above:
Awadewit: Perhaps the Darwin section should have the tree illustration (which is now gone, too) rather than Darwin's picture? It would help illustrate the concept described in the text in the way you describe textbooks do in the FAC.
* Comment: The image selections are another source of concern that have been raised numerous times. I tend to think textbooks; which are about engaging the young minds. I know as a kid I read every caption in our World Book, but never read the text. National Geographic --  need I say more. Awadewit has reformatted our current image selection and I think we are both pleased with the outcome; however we welcome additional perspectives here before we deem the matter addressed.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I consider this issue resolved. Awadewit | talk 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I can't think of any, but I did an image of Watson in the "Source of variation" section. Awadewit | talk 08:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 2 Line by Line Veto --- Images 

message: Concern copied from above:
 Awadewit: The "Modern synthesis" section does not seem to me to actually be about the modern synthesis (only the opening and closing of the section are - the middle is all Darwin). I think this section needs reworking. The two middle paragraphs are excellent, but perhaps they should go elsewhere? That would leave room for a real explanation of the synthesis. 
 Guettarda: The section on the modern synthesis is misleading. The modern synthesis was not born of the discovery of DNA - it came from the integration of Mendel with Darwin. It came from the work of Fisher, Haldane, Huxley, etc. What these people did, before the discovery of the role of DNA, was to transform evolution into a viable modern science. The section totally misses the point - it talks about the Galapagos, progression and the KT. The section should start with the final sentence, and work from there.
* Comment: It has undergone a complete rewrite since these comments were left. The Darwin material was moved to Darwin where I think it fits very nicely. I am not as confident of the text that I added; however, it should be easy enough to clean it up from here. Please take a look. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The second paragraph weaves around between too many different topics. It was not totally clear to me what of that material was the result of the modern synthesis and what was not. Also, the orchid picture now seems out of place. Awadewit | talk 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *This is much better now (I did some copy editing - please check for errors). However, what is now the last paragraph of "Source of variation" (on the lack of a "goal" for evolution, etc.) now seems to be a bit out of place - this is something I am much less sure about, though. It could fit there - thoughts? Awadewit | talk 08:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #3 Line by Line Veto --- Modern Synthesis 

message: This section has elicited some discussion in various locations in regards to both clarity and need:
Suppose a group of mice inhabit a barn. In this population, there are only two alleles for the gene that controls fur color. One allele for the fur color in the mouse population produces black mice and accounts for 75% of the genes. The other allele for the fur color produces white mice and makes up the remaining 25% of the genes in the population. If the only factors determining an allele’s chance of being represented in the next generation are random shuffling of alleles during the formation of sex cells (meiosis) and the random recombination that takes place during fertilization, the allele frequencies will stay the same from one generation to the next. In this example, the composition of the gene pool in the mouse population remains 75% black-coding alleles and 25% white-coding alleles. Because there is no change in the allelic frequencies, there is no evolutionary change in fur color. This population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium or is non-evolving. It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation.
* Comment: I strongly feel that Hardy-Weinberg is essential to understanding Evolution. I know this because in teaching, when I describe what it takes to maintain equilibrium; the student truly understand that its virtually impossible; and thus evolution is a reality. The complex part of Weinberg, is grasping the concept of equilibrium as it relates to the formula.  However, the primary concern is over the example itself. Are hypothetical examples appropriate in an encyclopedia as a teaching tool? If not, a simple deletion of this one would quickly solve the clarity problem. If so; is there a way to make this example clarify as opposed to confuse? Frankly I would prefer to keep it. But if it only serves to confuse, then its role as a teaching tool is maybe not so good. Can anyone fix it? --Random Replicator (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that hypothetical examples are fine, however I am not sure that this section yet achieves what you are trying to achieve with it. I do not think that the reader grasps how difficult it is to maintain equilibrium and thus that evolution almost always happens. Somehow that must be made clearer. (Actually, I did not realize that was the reason you wanted to include it until you mentioned it just now - I thought it was just a section explaining when evolution didn't happen. I thought it was rare, but it didn't strike me as anything earth-shattering. Sorry!) Awadewit | talk 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To make it clear, would it be a good idea to start the HWE section with a statement something like "A good way to appreciate that evolution is constantly occurring - that evolution is the norm in biological populations - is to examine a hypothetical situation in which there is no evolution. This situation is called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium." And then carry on as at present. Snalwibma (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 4 Line by Line Veto --- Weinberg 

message: Concern copied from above:
 Awadewit: Mutations can also alter the gene pool by creating new alleles and thus changing the frequency of the pre-existing alleles.[1] Mutations immediately change the gene pool by substituting one allele for another. Mutations have very little impact on the overall allele frequency in a large population. - This is a little hard to follow and repeats the same sentence structure three times in a row. Something like "While having very little impact on the overall allele frequency in a large population because [insert reason], mutations..." might be better.
*Comment: I made a second attempt(below) since the concern was posted; However, it likely still falls short. I could use some help in its resolution. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm thinking that the phrase "statistically significant" might not mean much to our audience. :) Imagine them replacing it with "significant" or "important" - is that good enough? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Oh, I didn't mean you should replace it with "significant" - I meant that readers might do that and I wondered if the meaning would be lost if they did. I was wondering if we needed to explain "statistically significantly". Awadewit | talk 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Yes - I like it! Awadewit | talk 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #5 Line by Line Veto --- Sentence clarity - mutations and weinberg 

message: Concern copied from above:
 Guettarda: The current arrangement overvalues molecular biology, undervalues palaeontology and taxonomy, and leaves out biogeography, which was the key bit that clued Darwin in, and also is probably the most intuitively understandable.
* Comment: I'm uncertain if this in regards to a section or the entire article. Perhaps the section on evidence for evolution? There have been concerns that the articles falls short in introducing some major concepts on evolution. One that caught my attention was epigenetics.  Frankly, the general layout simply emerged one weekend; mostly sequenced around my lecture notes. Its been stable for a year, other than my annoying minor obsession. I would; however, be delighted to see someone else add to its breadth if it does fall short.   --Random Replicator (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #6 Line by Line Veto: Inadequate in its coverage. 

message: Concern copied from above:
 Guettarda: The first paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" goes into unnecessary detail. An introductory article needs a clear statement that Darwin lacked a theory of inheritance (but still did a pretty good job). Losing everything after the third paragraph would substantially improve the section, although the second to last sentence ("Darwin produced an unsuccessful theory...") might be worth keeping to close off the paragraph.
*Comment: I boldly revised the heading to The Source of Variations from the former Mendel's contribution. The section itself was not really about Mendel so much as it was about the illusive source that accounted for diversity. We went through LaMarck (Which was the most challenged section) then Darwin's misconceptions, followed by what I thought was a modest introduction to Mendel's contributions. This might not be a bad section to introduce DNA and maybe even the epigenetics; shoud someone be so inspired. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 7 Line by Line Veto --- Over-emphasis of Mendel 

message: Concern copied from above:
Guettarda: Second paragraph - there is no single theory of evolution - there's a body of theory that is evolutionary biology.
*Comment: The intro has been rearranged a tad since this concern so perhaps it has been addressed. Although I think this a form of the original line: Evolution has hence drawn support from the research of individuals in many scientific fields.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #8 Line by Line Veto --- Single Theory of Evolution 

message: Concern copied from above:
 Guettarda: The image used in the "Species" section is a poor choice. The truly amazing diversification of cichlids is among the East African Rift Valley haplochromines.
*Comment: I feel somewhat better about the condition of the article in that the concerns are now able to be this focused. I changed fish. Is it accurate? On a different note: I had an email correspondance with Dr. Walter Salzburger, (Assistant ProfessorZoologisches Institut, Universität BaselVesalgasse 1, 4051 Basel, Switzerland) who read our entry with particular interest in the cichlid section on speciation and confirmed the accuracy of the text itself. Go us! --Random Replicator (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #8 Line by Line Veto --- the fish 

message: Concern Copied from FA Page:
 Circeus: References are formatted at best with troubling inconsistency.
 Kaypoh: Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs:
*Comment I've noticed from your contribution page that your involvement in FA attempts have be extensive; in fact numerous contributions over the last two weeks; many within a few minutes of each other. Are you a Bot? You stated that your English is not so good; yet you review FA's and comment on prose and copy/edits; then within minutes, draw conclusions of support or oppose. If you are an enormously talented reviewer, then my sincere apologies for the implications here; if you are bouncing around the FA page "voting", then you added unwarrented stress to this very serious process.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 9 Line by Line Veto -- References in general 

message: Concern copied from FA discussion page: 
  69.202.60.86 : I'm not too fond of the "Summary" section. As it's written, it reads like one of those dreaded "In conclusion" paragraphs to a high school essay. First person plural should really never be used in encyclopedic prose (I saw this elsewhere in the article, too). "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced..." <-- Hagiographic sentence that serves really no purpose.
* Comment: The First Person that crept in has been corrected. I toned down the Hagiographic (cool word) so I guess the only concern left is the summary. I like the summary.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 10 Line by Line--- Veto Hagiographic 

message: Concern copied from FA discussion page:
 Titanium Dragon: My objection on factual accuracy has been more or less met; I think their reading of the section is most likely correct and mine wrong. However, my oppose remains, mostly on the grounds of it just not being as well-written as I think a FA should be (overall quality of prose). 
  -Kaypoh: The article has many problems and is not ready for FA. The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate.I see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. The article is not well-written and needs a copy-edit, but I cannot help because my English is not very good. 
*Comment: This comment from Kaypoh was one of lots of throw-away remarks from a drive-by reviewer who didn't even realise that the article was already GA status. And anyway, it is better NOT to jump into the so-called evolution-creation controversy in this intro article. And again, having a few short paragraphs is good, not bad! I'd recommend simple deletion of this comment, or a firm and confident decision to ignore it. Snalwibma (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  #11 Line by Line Veto --- Not Well Written 

message: I have gone through and organized the remaining issues. It looks rather imposing; however, it is considerably shorter than it could have been since many of the prior concerns have been addressed. Any assistance or comments would be appreciated. I'm not myself certain that all of them can or should lead to changes in the article. That is for others to decide as well.  Please turn the red  to green  --- if you consider the issue closed and I will quite stressing over it.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Red 

message: Overview version 2
Biological success is measured in an organisms ability to produce offspring.
The offspring will differ from their parents and each other in minor, random ways.
If the differences (traits) are helpful, the offspring that inherited the traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.
More offspring in the next generation will inherit the helpful trait.
These traits accumulate over time, resulting in changes within the population.
Accumulated changes may gradually lead to entirely new types of life.
This process, called Evolution, accounts for the diversity of life in the world today.
Played around with it some. Version 2 is the longer one. Either way... one or the other has merit (likely vers.1) and perhaps should be replaced. I would not have clue how to make it horizontal... not sure I would like it that way.--71.77.211.77 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in a agreement of swapping the two and placing the portal at the bottom. I think the original loss was an effort to decrease the clutter. Can you pull it off and still retain the general lay-out? The format at present has never looked better. It does make  sense to place links to other locations toward the bottom; from a selfish standpoint I would like them to stick around at least long enough to scroll through. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that the summary box is very similar to the introduction paragraph. Maybe the similarities suggest we are close to a good opening line .... finally!--Random Replicator (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinstate the summary box and put a version of the  template at the bottom. Yes! Snalwibma (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I would make things complicated! The shorter; original version is fine with me.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is horizontal preferable? It might be better to incorporate the picture and have it going down into the available white space. See addition of picture to version three above. David D. (Talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Version 1: simple - concise - works for me.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Summary Box 

message: Three things I need help on.
* I would like the summary box added before FA closes in case it does generate concern.
* I cannot break the code on Items 4 and Item 5 in the "Line by Line List". They're legitimate concerns and I truly want a green check before FA closes. Comments to guide me ---- edits to just fix it. Understand that I am staying up way past my bed-time agonizing over these things. As a consequence, I wake up tired and confused. This has impacted my teaching in a very negative way. I am now a contributor to "The Educational Crisis In America". It is your civic duty to resolve this issue facing the United State of America.
* Personally; I think we have made a good faith effort to address the others, most with a positive outcome.
* This last is just venting: I am perplexed over the lack of regulation of "spamming" FA attempt sites. There are two critiques early on that have not responded; likely because they are too busy critiquing other FA attempts --- several an hour; day after day with broad damning comments such as poorly written or in need of copy-edited. Not their fault --- the system has failed here in that with guidance, they would likely be an asset. But poorly informed opposes and supports are disruptive and have a negative impact on the outcome; even if they're comments happen to be ignored by the FA director.I didn't want excuses if this thing fails.
*Items 4 and 5 ... the clock is ticking as America continues to fall behind in the world academically.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RR I think you are doing an incredible job. I am very impressed. I will think about the placement of the infoboxes a little.--Filll (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That  infobox seems to be almost replicated by the current footer. i think we might be able to just remove it without any addition to compensate for its loss. David D. (Talk) 17:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Overview
Life forms reproduce to make offspring.
The offspring differs from the parents in minor random ways.
If the differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce.
This means that more offspring in the next generation will have the helpful difference.
These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population.
Over time, this process gradually leads to entirely new types of life.
This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today.
Ok I have done some playing around with the caption of the figure at the top of the overview table. I am not sure what is best. The long form of the caption is "Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr.
Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival." When this caption was not centered, it became sort of discordant with the overview cells below, which had centered text in them. I wonder if the two parts should be separated by a carriage return or two: that, is put some vertical space between "Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr." and "Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival." I also wonder if a carriage return or two between this last sentence and the "overview" box is warranted so it does not look crowded; that is, put some vertical white space between the overview and end of the caption. I also wonder if the entire caption should be in regular text, or the second sentence should be in italics as in "Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr.
Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival." Should the second sentence have a smaller font? I do not think a different color would be good. Should the second sentence be left out? Comments?--Filll (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I also put a border around the figure. Does it look better with or without a border?--Filll (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that we can change the width of this overview table by changing the size of the figure. I am not sure what size is best.--Filll (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not the best choice to judge layout; I will go with the font, style and spacing that strikes your fancy. I do like the way it looks with the wider table and border. In regards to Darwin image: I complained about the demonic one on the Evolution page. The one you found was so much better. I would be thrilled if you could work it in without triggering a "cluttered compliant". Also, is a caption necessary to make a connection to the text? The brief Carr caption does not offer a connection to the subject unless it is intuitive between extinction - evolution - and the dinosaur, so I am leaning toward the larger image and more supportive footer for it. Although, you would think the connection between the image and the subject would be is obvious! Maybe an additional line: "Humans and this dinosaur never co-existed"  to counter-act the mis-information being disseminated by the Answers in Genesis museum! --Random Replicator (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I put the part about the Humans and the dinosaurs never co-existed on the extended caption that is visible when you click on the figure and get all the extra information about the artist etc.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm wondering if the tree might be too much.  It seems to make the box too long and detracts from the important text in the overview.  i am leaning towards the tree going back to its other location in the first section.  Allough then Darwn will have to go again. David D. (Talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guessing some one is saying "enough already", but it does stretch the box a bit. What if it was removed from the box, yet kept in the same location, couple of line breaks to separate it and narrowed up a tad so that the text is not so squeezed between Darwin and the tree. I hate to see Darwin surrounded in flowers go --- that was a stroke of genius.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point that in many respects this formatting depends a lot on the browser size, so let's leave it as is.  It's certainly not a disaster on my screen. I'm sure we'll here soon if it is unacceptable. David D. (Talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another attempt

message: Better, but point 2 is talking about sexually reproduced offspring in general.  Bacteria reproduce, and their offspring may be identical to the parent.  While clones may differ in minor random ways due to mutations this may or may not be accumulatable, so you should mention sex somewhere.  Also, if it is sex, it has parents.--Amaltheus (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For this kind of overview or gentle introduction, extra complications or exceptions really are inappropriate. We have the same problem with this article in general, or the LEAD. We cannot be all things to all people here. That is why there is an article called evolution. Even there, there is argument that the LEAD is too general and does not cover enough exceptions and special cases. 
However, if one insists that even 13-15 year olds (the target audience for this article) must hear the fine details suitable for graduate study on their first encounter with the subject, you will destroy the entire reason for the article's existence. We just cannot include all kinds of complications in the overview box. That is what happened to it before (version 2 above). People want to shove so much extra crap in that it becomes worthless. If you want detail, read the article itself. Better yet, read evolution. Better yet, read the references.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Errors of omission may have to be tolerated in a summary box. If it states "summary", then it is understood that there is more to the story. If a statement is incorrect or grossly misleading; then perhaps you can make some minor word tweaks here and there and fix it. Please don't feel that there is a barrier here that prevents you from offering a more accurate version that is of roughly the same length (its a small box) and does not introduce new complex concepts. I encourage you to edit away; that is why we put it on this page for input.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A quick look at the article now shows that sex is mentioned 3 times and reproduction is mentioned 15 times. That is not enough?-Filll (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, well I still think that the present version is better. I think we do not need to belabor the "sex" issue in the overview box. I am open to hear suggestions from others however.--Filll (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual reproduction isn't necessary to the evolutionary process.  Reproduction yes, not sexual reproduction.  Most life on earth reproduces asexually, and it evolves.  For example, super-bacteria have evolved.  It is simply during the process of cell division where both mutation can occur and it's through cell division that the mutation is replicated. And it's either through selection or drift, etc, that there is an evolutionary result.  Sexual reproduction brings unique opportunities to the process, that's all.  Professor marginalia (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further point--besides, absent those same two parts-mutation at the cell level, and its success in reproducing itself-sexual reproduction does not lead to evolution.  It would merely be a highly variable reshuffling that would eventually lead, given enough time, to a 100% homogenetic population. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, a widely documented example of evolution is anti-biotic resistance in bacteria. Is this logic in line with your point User talk:Amaltheus or has your statement been mis-interpreted? --Random Replicator (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't discuss bacterial evolution except in passing, it emphasizes eukaryotes and the fossil record.  To dismiss sexual reproduction by saying it "brings unique opportunities to the process, that's all" is to downplay the importance of variation in the offspring of sexually reproducing organisms to the theory of evolution by natural selection.  It seems other editors are hostile to including sex in the boxes.  I don't like an outline that implies, by the omission of sex, that random mutations are primary over reshuffling in providing variation in offspring for natural selection.  I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force.  I am more used to discussions about teaching evolution where others' ideas are weighed and evaluated rather than hostilely and aggressively dismissed.  This is not a beneficial technique for learning.  I will not continue this discussion.  There is no need to call others in to dismiss my comments from even different angles, the hostility to sex as a source of variation is evident.  --Amaltheus (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have been trying to discuss the issue because I like the article and I thought the little outline box was a good idea, but making it accurate in relation to the entire article, which is essentially about eukaryotic evolution, concerned me.  You came off to me at first as hostile, with an interest in belittling me, rather than discussing improvements to the article and the text box.  I agreed to back off of discussing the text box because of your hostility.  You've decided to get in a few more jabs.  This talk page should be used to improve to the article.  Your reaching accusations (you dislike me so you accuse me of writing an article you think is awful?  is that for real?) against me because you disagree with my ideas about the article serve no purpose other than to display the personal rather than professional nature for your hostility.  As I have agreed to back off, maybe you can do the same and consider the readers of this article and their perception of editors who cannot discuss the issue, but rather resort to personal snipes.  I thought an accurate introduction to evolution on Wikipedia was an excellent idea, and I really liked the way the article was going.  I offered suggestions.  You offer personal attacks against me, reaching far afield for them, apparently unable to offer counter arguments.  This discussion page is not the place for this.  --Amaltheus (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This took a turn for the worse; but maybe there is a lesson for all of us here.  Strong, passionate disagreement with an idea is fair; from either point of view. When several individuals lobby against you, it may simply mean you are incorrect. I have never seen anyone defend a viewpoint more passionately than you did with Darwin's Finches; it would be unfair to consider your strong disagreement as unyielding. But you do have to expect such passionate disagreements to be aimed back at you on occasion. I was attempting humor to lighten the tone ---not to belittled. Clearly that backfired; my sincerest apologies on that, I have learned a valuable lesson. As for my lack of tact - in a desperate effort to salvage this, maybe it was the timing. I have addressed a never ending list of concerns; debated over a single word for days; copy/edited and copy/edited. Unfortunately, I've become over protective to the point of being rude. I will take a break from this for a while. Maybe find a forgotten stub on some obscure fish to work on. I am very sorry. --Random Replicator (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your comments.  I do have a problem being told I have a "chip on my shoulder" and I write "gibberish."  Anyone would have a problem with this.  I am passionate about accurately teaching evolutionary theory.  I like the idea behind this article, something I've not seen done in other encyclopedias.  Amaltheus (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if you are interested in sex and evolution, you might want to help with Evolutionary theory of sex.--Filll (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sex is not mandatory for evolution, for if it was, how did sex itself evolve? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you are correct. Nevertheless, this whole thread entered the tar pit of weirdness long ago. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I think putting Darwin on the right side is bad because it ruins the numbering scheme below at some resolutions. 
I also think that the overview box should have the text centered or else it looks bad, since the overview text is centered.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The double stack, still on the left hand side, still overwrites the numbers from the numbered list.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Darwin surrounded by the flowers, nice of you to show his softer side!--Random Replicator (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image changes

message: I wonder about the text at the top of the page, directing readers to evolution and the Simple wikipedia article should be above the infobox and dinosaur picture, or alongside it?--Filll (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. The reason I edited it to allow the overview box go right to the top was to give it a little more room to prevent it bleeding into the fist section.  Is there another way to stop it nudging into the first section? David D. (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I put the text back at the top.  I looked at a print preview of the article pages, using US letter, and there is no problem with the overview box going into the first section.  This seems like the only situation we should be worrying about since the diversity of browsers and screen sizes is too large to accommodate every scenario. David D. (Talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text at top of page

message: Is it ok to insert spaces, or a line break, or sub-header Editor Ownership  or something between the dialog on the FA page as it relates to the editors behavior and the dialog that relates to the entry itself? It is somewhat confusing for the new reviewers as it stands who may wish to offer concerns about the article itself. It looks more like a WP policy debate than an FA on Introduction to Evolution. It is a bit overwhelming. I would hate to be the FA director searching for new perspectives that might get lost in that one, very, very long issue. Would anyone be opposed? Is it legal? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  An admin. moved it to the discussion page; which cleaned up the mess. That works for me. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation 

message: :See the archived section above for much discussion on this topic. 
An attempt to write a compromise paragraph can be found at the following page, User:Dweller/evol. About five users, who were also involved in the discussion above, finalised three sentences that I added to the first section of this article (as discussed at User talk:Dweller/evol). This paragraph attempts to acknowledge that there is a disagreement without it becoming a distraction from the scientific content of the article. It also attempts to generalise the controversey so that no particular religion is being discussed, rather the general concept of the differences are touched on.  I would suggest that we can discuss this further on this talk page.  I have archived the discussion above for clarity. And to focus the discussion in this new section. David D. (Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution/religion

message: The Voyage of Discovery Barnstar
		To the collaborators on this article, I award this barnstar for sailing harmoniously with a rogue stowaway, without making him walk the plank. May we soon reach our destination. May God bless you and all those who sail with you. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Barnstar 

message: Whitetip shark (left) compared with the bottlenose dolphin
Above are all the images that were commented out during the FAR (go into edit mode to see the code).  I'll leave them here in case someone else wishes to reinsert any of these. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow a lot of them. Some of them I like, but I am a big fan of figures, especially for an elementary treatment. I would favor putting some of these back, but maybe we should wait until the FAR is over.--Filll (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the whale dolphin one, did it go due to redundancy with the limb figure?David D. (Talk) 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The picture edits were all about layout. I was never involved in that; but the intent was to generate a cleaner less cluttered page which is more in line with other FA articles. I think it looks excellent as it stands now.  --Random Replicator (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out Images 

message: I am still thinking about the Hardy-Weinberg section. There is a comment way up above somewhere that the function of the section is unclear. I suggested (up there) that it could be made apparent by an addition to the start of the section, something like In order to show that ongoing evolution is the normal state in most natural populations, a common starting point is to examine a hypothetical situation in which there is no evolution. But I fear my suggestion got swamped by recent discussions on other matters... Any thoughts? Would this be a good idea? Snalwibma (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardy-Weinberg and the extentions to the equation that work in genetic drift and effective population size are the mathematical backbone of evolution - they are the hard basis of our science, like the equations of relativity and Quantum mechanics are to physics. As such, it's good they're aware they exist. It's probably not so important that all the details are known - I've done an entire course on Hardy-Weinberg and related equations - but it's good to know that they exist. Adam Cuerden talk 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the original line from eons ago. To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it might be useful to consider the gene pool of a non-evolving population. A theory called the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" states that the frequencies of alleles in a population’s gene pool will not change over time unless acted upon by forces other than... I've completely burned out on that section.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardy-Weinberg

message: Hello. Thinking of the need for this to be accessible, I was going to alter "Prezygotic barriers prevent mating between species..." to "Prezygotic barriers are barriers which prevent mating between species...", and make the same change to postzygotic barriers, since I think it makes it clear that this is what 'prezygotic barriers' means, rather than it just being a feature of them. However, given the concerns with prose style and that the article is currently going through FAC, I am reluctant to make any changes at all! Personally I think the repetition of 'barriers' in the way I would rewrite it makes it clearer, but I'm aware it could make people shriek. So, I'll just write this overly-long description of a minor edit here :) Skittle (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarity is why it was written ... Have at it!--Random Replicator (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teeny weeny change 

message: I dont mean to offend anyone, but I am not sure it is a great idea, and probably contrary to the WP:MOS to state that the article is meant for junior high school and high school children in the first line. If nothing else, these phrases mean nothing in most of the world. Remember, we are not writing for the United States. And even in the United States, frankly this might offend some. 
Also, I am not sure it is great to launch into discussions of RNA and DNA in the second sentence. I think we are heading for trouble, particularly when the previous LEAD was the result of a long process of consensus building over the past year. 
Maybe we should consider redoing this a bit? I do not quite understand the motivation for it, to be honest.  --Filll (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My  motivation was the endless sniping that the article was poorly written and did not conform to MoS in all possible interpretations. So I was bold and tried to do something about it. According to various style guidelines, the article title ought to appear in the first sentence. The rest of the lead simply did not flow logically. Perhaps it was written by a committee but it also read like it was written by a committee. Mind you I'm no master of style, but I was motivated to improve the lead ...and the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think I sounded too defensive. Please, please, edit and change my text with free abandon. As for the DNA bit, for some reason, the lead did not emphasize or even state one of the most important biological facts: all life is related. A real, honest to god fact of biology that in-itself refutes biblical fundalmentalists. Thus, the DNA bit should follow because it is by now widely known (thanks to CSI and other crime shows) by junior high school kids. As, for actually, naming the target, perhaps saying 14-year-olds might be more universal. The point here is to nail why the article even exists. This too is an important guideline of Wikipedia: articles must state why they exist. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, perhaps drop the RNA and other technical bits. As for MoS being an iron clad rule, who knows? The only FA quality example is Introduction to general relativity but it doesn't seem to be aimed at kids. At GA, this article is the only example. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps rather than identifying a specific group; it should state the general purpose as it relates to understanding, "minimal background in biology ... or something of the sort. I'm not sure about being too confining to the audience by age or grade level. I agree there is merit in an explanation of why two separate articles on the same topic. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Minimal background in biology' might be the better tack because - I just checked - the article as it is written has a reading level of 1st year college/university/grade 13/6th form. The lead is worse as it scores at a 2nd year university in terms of reading level. Newspapers in comparison usually score at grade 9 (14 year old). The language of the article is dense. I am going to be chipping away at the reading level and doing my best in the style department. By the way RR, does the text sound way out of line for a junior high kid. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouch 

message: Does anyone have a good reference for "However, speciation has been observed in several groups of organisms, including bacteria, round worms, insects, and fish, as well as in several groups of plants,"" Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea where the addition came from. It might be difficult to support from a single source unless the contrib. knows where it was specifically found. It might be better to edit it out for now... a non-sourced statement like that will be the death of an FA attempt. Thoughts --Random Replicator (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of an easy way to determine when the sentence was inserted. Deletion is the best course. Although I do know of an example involving stickle back fish ...which might be easy to dig up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: , includes a link to a more detailed article which has a supporting list. .. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Species

message: I have done quite a big tweak. Please review, amend, reject, comment on etc. as appropriate! Snalwibma (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's going overboard.  How about "Introduction to evolution is an overview of biological evolution intended for the reader new to scientific explanations of the natural processes by which all species develop from earlier forms of life."  Long sentences can, imo, have the opposite effect of drawing the reader in.  This one detracts a bit, in my opinion.  Simpler would be better for the lead.  --Amaltheus (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)Thanks.  I did revert you on No disclaimers in articles grounds.  Also, the context of the article and the title Introduction to evolution should make it perfectly clear that this is an introductory article.  Toward that end, I'd work toward jumping right into the subject matter, instead of disclaiming the article's lack of scientific sophistication.  TableMannersC·U·T 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - point taken, and thanks! I agree, actually - and surely the line at the very top ("This article is intended as a generally accessible introduction to the subject" - generated by the  template ) is more than adequate as an explanation of how it fits into the wikipedia scheme of things evolution-wise. But I do think my addition of "This" to the start of the sentence is a good idea. We are, after all, referring only to this particular article, not to a concept called "introduction to evolution". Snalwibma (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not think of anything better than your addition of the word "this" so I left it.  However, I am open to its removal if somebody comes up with an improvment.  Thanks again.  TableMannersC·U·T 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What puzzled me in your revert was that I didn't introduce the disclaimer, just edited it to try and make it make better sense. But we're much better off without it! Snalwibma (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you did not take offense because non was intended.  It looks like the disclaimer is creeping back in.  I'll go try to fix it, but would rather have somebody more skilled at writing leads do it.  TableMannersC·U·T 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: I am a little uncomfortable with a first sentence that states "This article is about Blah blah". I think that we have to be more clever about the first sentence. I am in favor of a simple LEAD of course, and the present LEAD seems to be in general moving towards a more readable and accessible version, although I think it has a few mistakes and problems with punctuation etc.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out.  See below.  It may very well end up back in if I am not persuasive.  TableMannersC·U·T 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I was asked by Random Replicator and TableManners to read the new lead. The reason for this, I think, is that I have done some copy editing and reviewing for this article, so I am somewhat familiar with the ins and outs of the article. Let me mention that I teach freshmen composition at the college level in the United States (which is basically like teaching high school English), so when I think to myself "could my students understand this?", that is who I am thinking of. I believe the writers of this article were aiming for an audience of high school students OR someone with that level of scientific knowledge. Either happily or sadly, my own personal scientific education is pretty much limited to high school and a few "genetics for poets" classes in college. I like to read popular science books, but as we all know, that is not real science. I can say nothing regarding the scientific accuracy of this page, since I've only read Richard Dawkins, but I can discuss its clarity and its grammar. I thought making my background clear might help out here. 
I think that the new lead is an improvement in many ways over the old lead. It has a more detailed explanation of evolution itself, which is helpful since repetition generally helps people learn. However, I think that the wording and the sentence structure could be improved in spots.
*Biological evolution is the natural process that explains the common relationship of all life on earth now and in the past. Evolution is a result of the combined changes that occur in a population of organisms over successive generations. - For someone unfamiliar with evolution, this looks like two different definitions. These sentences need to be explanatorily linked somehow.
*All living organisms can inherit these changes because of genes. Molecules called DNA make up genes. - This is choppy - How about: All living organisms can inherit these changes because they have genes, which are made up of molecules called DNA.
*Scientists call the new features traits and these are almost always very minor. - The focus of this sentence is the naming of "traits" rather than the fact that traits are minor. Scientists and their naming practices are not essential to mention in the lead, I don't think. How about: These new features—called traits—are almost always minor.
*Scientists call this process natural selection. - Focus on naming of process again, rather than on defining of natural selection
*Because of these different traits, no two creatures will do equally well in their environment. One creature may have trouble and produce few offspring. Another creature may do well and produce many offspring. - These sentences can probably be combined. How about: Because no two creatures have exactly the same traits, they will live and reproduce differently, some more effectively than others.
*Over many generations, as the accumulation of so many new traits in a group of creatures seems so much different from its ancestor, people recognize the new group of creatures as a different species. - wordy - How about: Over many generations, many new traits accumulate in a group of creatures to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species. - Here it might be important that scientists recognize species - I'm not sure.
*The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. An estimated 1.75 million different species alive today are all related to the first common ancestor that appeared when life first began. - This sentence has no home now. It needs to be integrated into a paragraph.
*The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants. - This chronology sounds strange as the first sentence does not suggest a step-by-step chronology, but the second does.
*The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics would provide insight into the source of variations in creatures. - Give a timeframe for the uninformed reader.
*Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution. - Meaningless sentence - What research? What fields? Either expand or remove. 
A few comments on reading level. I would discourage the editors from using USA Today as their model. As I understand it, it is written at a fourth-grade reading level. The New York Times, however is written at an eighth-grade reading level, which is closer to the 12-year-old that Wassupwestcoast wants to be able to read this article. While I applaud this goal, it is, in reality, very hard to achieve, particularly in science articles. Real scientific terms must be used in order to educate the reader - not using terms like natural selection would do the reader a real disservice, as these are crucial to the discourse of evolution. However, as long as each term is carefully explained, I think that the article will be readable by those who want to learn. It is never easy to read scientific texts and we all have to reread. Are there certain sections that people in this discussion feel are poorly explained or filled with unnecessary jargon? Those should indeed be rewritten. However, in discussions of this sort, we should always "go back to the text" as we lit crit types like to say. Let's look at individual passages and analyze them. :) Awadewit | talk 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through about 20 of these before getting approval on the former -lastest version --- Until we address each concern raised here; then I strongly suggest reverting to the one that did pass this level of scrutiny. We should then take the new version which has a strong potential to be better; drop it in a sandbox and chip away at the list. I know the list well. I respect the list and have no doubt it represents a mo better understanding of writing than I possess. I do not think we need to edit away on the actual page; this will scream instability and a lack of a shared goal. Wassupwestcoast;  do you want to make a box? I'm sure we would will join you --- I'll even bring a shovel. I bet it can be perfected in a very short period. Then we can run it by again; and likely again ... but eventually it will be golden. I think this is fair .. Yes? --Random Replicator (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally a good idea. I will make the kitty litter free sand box. Go to User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox evo lead. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you move it to Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2?  Thanks.  TableMannersC·U·T 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I've made some edits in the sandbox. Awadewit | talk 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with filll with respect to the description of evolution.  We don't need to give undue weight to esoteric details that do not affect an understanding of evolution.  Significant details probably should be discussed (e.g., modern synthesis, per dave souza and Amaltheus).  TableMannersC·U·T 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Awadewit on the new lead

message: The lead sentence is bad.  You have to have a style that engages the reader into the article in addition to writing at an appropriate level.  You don't have to knock people unconscious with your lead sentence, either.  It appears that a simple declarative sentence leading into the article is not possible (as usual, no one bothered to respond to my post, but I'm more than used to that by now, and it's one step up from calling me names behind my back!).  
This article is intended as an introduction to the scientific concepts behind evolution.  This makes it different from the standard encyclopedia and the usual Wikipedia article.  Alerting the reader to this, without disclaimers, seems to me to be a good idea.  If it were not a special type of Wikipedia article, I can see arguments against doing this.  But pretending it's a standard article when it's not isn't helpful.  The lead paragraph is unreadable, imo.  It has soporific qualities.
IMO it's also bad to be too in love with sophisticated vocabulary, not just complex.  
This is my suggestion for the lead section, taking issue with some problems in the current one, elaborated below:
:Introduction to evolution is an overview of biological evolution intended for the reader new to scientific explanations of the natural processes by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.  All living things on the planet earth share a common relationship with each other and with all extinct organisms as a result of the process of evolution.  Evolution occurs due to the accumulation of changes through time that takes place in a population of organisms over successive generations. All living organisms inherit these changes in their genes, which are made up of information molecules called DNA.  Changes in these molecules, called (mutations), can become a new feature, or trait,  in the offspring of a living organism.  New traits in an offspring are almost always minor, but create differences in the members of a population that lead to no two members doing equally well in the same environment. One member may do poorly and produce few or no offspring. Another member may do well because of a unique favorable trait and produce many offspring. This process is called natural selection. Over time, the favorable trait will become more common in the descendents of the population. Over many generations many new traits may accumulate in a population making the organism so much different from its ancestors that it is no longer recognizable as the same species.
Traits are not "new features" because the old features are traits, also.  The process is called "natural selection," it's not owned by scientists.  The favorable trait only has to become more common, not common.  Speciation doesn't require a scientist to recognize it.  I see some changes have been added, since I went at this, I'll look at them.  I do expect this to be completely ignored, so there's no point in reading the new lead before posting this.  --Amaltheus (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umn, I tried to incorporate some of your changes, and as far as I can tell, everybody seems to think very highly of your help (I know I do).  TableMannersC·U·T 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amaltheus, why did you cut and paste this section to here?  The request for for another editor to move the proposed draft from his talk space to this article's talk space.  TableMannersC·U·T 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, you misunderstood me.  I did not make the request of you.  No problem.  TableMannersC·U·T 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my mistake.  It's another private conversation.  --Amaltheus (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed my crap from you all's private conversation about the lead of this article.  I'll try not to mistake this for a Wikipedia article again.  --Amaltheus (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These snide comments are not called for.  It was a misunderstanding.  Look further up on this page and it is pretty clear that my request was for  to move a draft (including its history) from his talk space to a page in this article's talk space.  You're welcome to participate before or after the move, I am sure.  TableMannersC·U·T 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, the only thing that is clear is the intention of the writers of this article to own it and own all discussion of it and exclude everyone who's ideas they disagree with or can't be bothered to read. That is ENTIRELY clear. Don't come back and tell me my snide remarks are uncalled for after dismissing my contribution as a piece of worthless shit that's simply in the way of you all discussing what you intend the article to be in a private venue where other writers can't contribute and are told they're not to. It's completely clear that I tainted the discussion by thinking that it was anything but precisely what it is: an ownership meeting for this article.  --Amaltheus (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to chill out.  I said no such thing.  I agree that the discussion should be on this page or sub page of this page, not in some user's talk page.  You're more than welcome to participate.  TableMannersC·U·T 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead suggestion 

message: I can point out some problems but don't have time to do the rewrite right now, and it appears that following the request to post lead suggestions here was not for me-again the exclusive club of which any outsider suggestions are not allowed.
:"Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants. His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance. The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures. Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research. Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution. Evolution is the principal theory that governs our understanding of zoology, botany, agriculture, medicine, molecular biology, paleontology, taxonomy and any other scientific field that attempts to understand life."
Mendel's work on plants was contemporaneous with Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species.  There weren't great advances between the two publications, Darwin's book and Mendel's papers.  His research did not lead to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance, later scientists studying inheritance and coming upon his research led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance and a great appreciation of Mendel.  You should probably say population genetics in the lead, also.  There was a hell of a lot of work between this discovery and Watson and Crick, like most of the scientific work done that gives us the way we study evolutionary biology today and the platform upon which our genetic evolutionary biology sits.  The modern synthesis can't be left out.  --Amaltheus (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Mendel was contemporaneous with Darwin. So perhaps "next step was" is wrong. But at this stage in the article I think it can be solved by something like "The next important step arose from Gregor Mendel's work with plants." No need for more detail in the lead section, I think. Watson and Crick, and what happened before them, and the modern synthesis, appear later in the article. Snalwibma (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Add in modern evolutionary synthesis, will move that to the article for now. .. dave souza, talk 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just did it.  Now we may need to find synonyms for organisms if the word is overused in some paragraphs.  TableMannersC·U·T 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that's an improvement as critters doesn't hint to me that plants are included. It might be worth pinching the brief explanation from organism,  (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism). Think that's important enough to put in the lead? .. dave souza, talk 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph of lead  

message: Dave, should we simply do a search and replace on creatures/organisms?  I think the use of the word creature is imprecise and possibly creationist rhetoric.  TableMannersC·U·T 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did it.  Now we may need to find synonyms for organisms if the word is overused in some paragraphs.  TableMannersC·U·T 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that's an improvement as critters doesn't hint to me that plants are included. It might be worth pinching the brief explanation from organism,  (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism). Think that's important enough to put in the lead? .. dave souza, talk 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisms v. creatures 

message: Some of the discussion on this page is crossing the line from impassioned rhetoric into incivility.
I strongly urge all to keep cool and exercise restraint in editing while hot-tempered. Admins hate handing out incivility blocks to useful contributors, so I strongly request that each of you takes care not to fan flames or make comments that are not civil.
I also warmly invite you all to peruse WP:BOSTON TEA PARTY and help it to evolve.
Cheers muchly, --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gentle warning to all contributors 

message: :Amaltheus provided a helpful critique at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. Since it's more usefully dealt with here, I've copied it below, and am in the process of implementing suggestions that seem useful to me. I'm interspersing my own comments, indented and in italics. Others may find it useful to do the same. Many thanks to everyone for cooperating on this, .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, amendment made to suit. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a name with specific scientific meaning, don't see the need to change but open to discussion. . dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, done. ..dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Tried "new traits accumulate in a population to such a degree that the organism has changed and scientists recognize it as a new species". Better? .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Removed "According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated" and changed it to "and it is estimated that", source isn't needed in overview. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Been done. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Happier with proposed phrasing above? .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So Darwin started >20 years earlier. Next is next, see above. ..  dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See proposal above. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See proposal above, "led" doesn't mean instantaneous. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point, adding in MES. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Kind of" is still modern, and it's still in progress. See revision. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Revised to clarify. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on talk page.  --Amaltheus (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amaltheus was asked to join a group of the page's editors and myself on our revision of the lead of the article (he subsequently erased this invitation from his userpage), but s/he refused. See here. I specifically made an effort to invite him/her because I know s/he had felt excluded in the past. I agree with him/her that many of the sentences are problematic; in fact, I identified them as such just today on the talk page. We will be fixing them tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was asked why I bothered to post to a discussion on the lead section.  Then I was told that I was not invited.  Then I was scolded by someone for getting ticked off at trying to provide useful changes to the article in spite of being mocked by the editors for a week.  Then I got Awadewit's invitation.  I think I will allow myself the utter incredulity that this was really an invitation.  My comments about evolutionary biology stand regardless of this continued personal assault on me.  --Amaltheus (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments about ownership, "getting ticked off", "being mocked", and a "personal assault" are completely unjustified. I suggest that any further discussion of these matters should take place at User talk:Amaltheus.Snalwibma (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The user misunderstood a request to another user regarding exisiting discussion, and cut and pasted a new discussion that did not even exist at the time I made the request to the destination page.  It was a simple misunderstanding (AGF), and I said as much.  And it has been affirmed that the user is free, able, and welcome to participate in the discussions, whereever they occur.  I personally continue to welcome the user and his or her participation, but do request that he or she desist from mischaracterizing my participation in this conversation.  I am glad we are moving to more substantive issues, such as if or where to include modern synthesis.  TableMannersC·U·T 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Darwin was working in a set of ideas that denied that they were ancestral, and while recognising that the fossils were much older, postulated that they were separate creations. Got a better, simpler word? .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And de Candolle, and others. How much historical detail do we put in this article? .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not a big deal to me, any others feel strongly one way or the other? .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds sensible, will change that to "close" .. . dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aren't the flowers themselves modified leaves? An expert rewriting of the sentence will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Darwin was too overwrought about the terminal illness of his son to do anything, and he put the matter entirely in the hands of Lyell and Hooker. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't despair, we'll soon sort it if we work together, .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A helpful critique from Amaltheus

message: I've added a sandbox section Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2#Lead as amended on article, 18:27, 2008-21-01 with the suggestion that it be compared with the recently amended sandbox version, and differences picked out for comment. In my opinion each has worthwhile amendments covering contentious points, and it should be possible to pick out the best from each as a way forward. Will come back to this asap, got another panic to sort now :-/ . .  dave souza, talk 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see my requests for assistance did not go unanswered.  Evolution Discussion Page. I had suggested the idea of a sandbox for the lead; frankly because for some reason it worked well on a prior controversial issue with a multitude of differing perspectives. Also, a series of reverts scream instability; which is not an accurate reflection on the article as it is only the lead and summary that are typically in flux. It seems to have worked. At least in that the lead is likely as close as it has ever been to meeting approval. Don't sell yourselves short on this accomplishment. The Main Article's lead has probably changed a zillion times over the years; so it is not surprising that this one, would also suffer similar growing pains. Compounded by the constraints of keeping it within the grasp of a less advanced audience ---  which is damn hard to do. For what it is worth  -I like the outcome. I am hoping that we can agree to have Awadewit  take one final evaluation on the final version. You guys may know the science; but I trust we all agree that her skills exceed ours in the written word. I also note the ownership issue keeps re-emerging. All the edits made today were by contributors who have had minimal to no contributions in the past; so I welcome the new owners to the neighborhood and hope that you will invite other guest to come and contribute. Just have them look to the dove upon entering!!! Being told it is not FA is discouraging; I will argue with equal passion that the article has been improved dramatically since the attempt was made. Seriously, thanks for all the energy and patience. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some more suggestions and edits on this version. More tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead as amended on article, 18:27, 2008-21-01

message: I repeat the advice I gave higher up this page.
Dispute surrounding this article is heading towards "disruption", at which point good editors can earn themselves blocks.
I'm particularly dismayed to see that the level of debate has descended in places (not necessarily here) past incivility to the unpleasantnesses of personal attack, which is of course, utterly unacceptable.
No-one has to agree on anything. Just debate your differences reasonably or leave them as differences. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a scientist and don't understand what "lineage" means in this context. There's a lineage of succession of Kings and Queens of England... what's a lineage of organisms? Do you mean, for example, that organism a that lived y million years ago evolved into b which in turn evolved into c? (that's my guess, but my lack of certainty implies it's a bad choice of word). --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you up to a point, Una. You could indeed say that evolution is a result rather than a process. And you could also argue that it's not an organism but a succession of generations of organisms (a lineage of organisms) that evolves. But surely this is all too subtle. The Collins dictionary says that evolution = "a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations". Is that "gradual change" a result or a process? It could be either, actually. And can't we allow organisms (in the plural, note) to stand for a succession of generations of organisms? I think the proposed rewrite is unnecessary (based on an over-pedantic analysis of the language), and I find it obscure and hard to understand. It raises more questions than it answers (What is a lineage? What changes are you talking about? If evolution is the result, what is the process?). I reckon Evolution is the process by which organisms change over generations is just fine. Or maybe amend (if amend we must) to something more like what the dictionary says: Evolution means a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations. Snalwibma (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Accessible nonsense is still nonsense.  The article has to be correct.  It is incorrect to say that an organism evolves.  Evolution is a process is both overly precise and incorrect, because evolution is not a process.  Evolution means a gradual change is better except that evolution is not necessarily gradual;  the phrase reduces to Evolution means change.  Animals or plants is overly precise, omitting the majority of the world's known species. Etc.  How about In biology, evolution refers to change in the traits of a population of organisms over generations.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course an organism doesn't evolve. But that is not what the lead sentence says - it says that "organisms change over generations". And on what basis do you say that evolution is not a process? But in any case your new version is just too complicated and hard to follow. As Filll says, this is an introductory article. Inevitably, it will (nay, it must) blur a few fine distinctions. Rather than absolute accuracy in every detail, it's a matter of finding the balance, and of being accurate enough. Snalwibma (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is not 'refering' to anything; to be precise. Evolution is something; either a result or a process. As for detail and correctness, the DNA of an individual cell (the genetic individual) can change over its life time. A stray cosmic ray can change the reproductive genotype of a male.  Nevertheless, this level of detail is silly. We need to concentrate on simplicity and not on the illusion of correctness by ever finer detail. To the beginning biologist, the world of life is divided between plants and animals. To the professional biologist, life has how many kingdoms? What about lichens? Remember this article is an 'Introduction to Evolution' meant for a reader who will be surprised by many new ideas. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent (IMHO). I think that change is just right. Snalwibma (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second warning 

message: The first sentence of the lead now is: Evolution is the process by which organisms change over generations.  Organisms are individuals;  they do not have generations, hence cannot change over generations.  Evolution is not a process:  it is a result.  Natural selection is a process.  Hence "evolution by natural selection".  So try this instead:  Evolution is the result of changes that accumulate within lineages of organisms.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a scientist and don't understand what "lineage" means in this context. There's a lineage of succession of Kings and Queens of England... what's a lineage of organisms? Do you mean, for example, that organism a that lived y million years ago evolved into b which in turn evolved into c? (that's my guess, but my lack of certainty implies it's a bad choice of word). --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you up to a point, Una. You could indeed say that evolution is a result rather than a process. And you could also argue that it's not an organism but a succession of generations of organisms (a lineage of organisms) that evolves. But surely this is all too subtle. The Collins dictionary says that evolution = "a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations". Is that "gradual change" a result or a process? It could be either, actually. And can't we allow organisms (in the plural, note) to stand for a succession of generations of organisms? I think the proposed rewrite is unnecessary (based on an over-pedantic analysis of the language), and I find it obscure and hard to understand. It raises more questions than it answers (What is a lineage? What changes are you talking about? If evolution is the result, what is the process?). I reckon Evolution is the process by which organisms change over generations is just fine. Or maybe amend (if amend we must) to something more like what the dictionary says: Evolution means a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations. Snalwibma (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Accessible nonsense is still nonsense.  The article has to be correct.  It is incorrect to say that an organism evolves.  Evolution is a process is both overly precise and incorrect, because evolution is not a process.  Evolution means a gradual change is better except that evolution is not necessarily gradual;  the phrase reduces to Evolution means change.  Animals or plants is overly precise, omitting the majority of the world's known species. Etc.  How about In biology, evolution refers to change in the traits of a population of organisms over generations.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course an organism doesn't evolve. But that is not what the lead sentence says - it says that "organisms change over generations". And on what basis do you say that evolution is not a process? But in any case your new version is just too complicated and hard to follow. As Filll says, this is an introductory article. Inevitably, it will (nay, it must) blur a few fine distinctions. Rather than absolute accuracy in every detail, it's a matter of finding the balance, and of being accurate enough. Snalwibma (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is not 'refering' to anything; to be precise. Evolution is something; either a result or a process. As for detail and correctness, the DNA of an individual cell (the genetic individual) can change over its life time. A stray cosmic ray can change the reproductive genotype of a male.  Nevertheless, this level of detail is silly. We need to concentrate on simplicity and not on the illusion of correctness by ever finer detail. To the beginning biologist, the world of life is divided between plants and animals. To the professional biologist, life has how many kingdoms? What about lichens? Remember this article is an 'Introduction to Evolution' meant for a reader who will be surprised by many new ideas. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent (IMHO). I think that change is just right. Snalwibma (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead first sentence

message: ...to any grammar mavens who can give the thumbs up to the lead and summary. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Big shout out

message: I've changed the 'further reading' list to ten recently published popular works that are readily available. Nothing is older  than 1996 and all are from major publishers. All are likely available at any public library. On Wikipedia, a further reading list / bibliography is not recognized as a 'source' list. The sources must be inserted into the body of the text. However, a 'further reading' list is not a list of sources. It is a resource for the Wikipedia reader who wants to go one-step further than this article. What is the next best text to read that covers Evolution for the beginner? This is what 'further reading' lists are intended to do in print encyclopedia. Certainly, no one beginning their masters in biology is going to be reading this article and locating a pertinent monograph from our 'further reading' list to flesh out their thesis.  Our most likely reader ought to be an adolescent. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: I have edited the introduction somewhat [see section at top] to make the text more precise and accurate. I strongly recommend that an administrative editor review this and substitute it for the introductory text in the article. Evolutionary scientist Steven (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is an 'Introduction to Evolution' and discussion of gene frequency shifts is a complication to understanding. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really though, since we have the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? It seems to be representative of the level the article is at present. And it introduces content in the article which is the role of the LEAD. Plus, evolution does not happen without change in allele frequencies so it could be viewed as critical to an understanding of evolution.  That is why we kept HW, i assume? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium should not be here at all but in the Evolution article. The math concepts of statistics and combinatorics are not introduced until the twelveth grade. Readers with simple math skills will find it a barrier. This whole article must be a simpler version of Evolution. If it is not, then - to repeat myself and other editors - why does the article exist? We must keep it simple. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but while it is still in the article don't you think the lead should have a nod towards it?  David D. (Talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was pretty surprised to see H/W in an introductory article. I was only introduced to it at university as an undergraduate. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Nevertheless, I'm interest to here the rationale for why it was added. I don't know when it was written or who wrote it? David D. (Talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What about moving it to the main evolution article? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not the courage to go there. But you are welcome to it! --Random Replicator (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way for those keeping up with the betting board: 11:5:1  :)  --Random Replicator (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would be happy to see H-W vanish. I know why it is there (RR has explained, and it did indeed seem a logical step in a story several months ago) - but it can go. Very little would be required other than to chop out the section headed "Hardy-Weinberg". Just a little tweak, perhaps, to the start of the following section ("Changing gene pool and genetic drift"). Snalwibma (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I really think it ought to be in the main Evolution article. I too think it is great being a quantitative type myself. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's NOT gone ...well, gone from here. I've placed into the Evolution article where it seems to fit OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good we don't want to lose good stuff. With respect to speciation barriers may the major issue with it is undue weight in the article? Reduction rather removal would be my preference if it is changed at all. David D. (Talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HW equilibrium