Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 4

message: This is an excellent start on what is, in some places of the world, a controversial topic. I'm happy that this page exists (I'm a fan of separating "introduction" and "advanced" pages). I come to this page as an avid reader of popular science books, not as a scientist, so I am, in many ways, your ideal reader. Here are my suggestions for improving the article:
Organization:
*The "Key points" in the "Summary" are not all covered in the article; in fact, most of them are not. Perhaps a better name for the list would be something like "Common misconceptions". I'm not sure that I think this list is a good idea (particularly since it is so long). There are really important ideas in the list that are not covered in the article, such as the idea of "progress". I would try to integrate the material from this list into the article where appropriate and leave the rest of the "Summary" as a true summary.
Responses from a lay reader regarding content and wording:
*The lead seems repetitious - the same explanation is repeated twice (once with genes and once without). I'm sure this is actually more precise, but to a lay reader, it simply seems repetitive.
*The lead does not mention all of the major sections of the article (e.g., evidence for evolution) - it is not a standalone summary of the article.  See WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads.
*In 1809 Lamarck proposed a mechanism of transmutation of species to explain this descent. - This is not explained at all. I was just left hanging. Perhaps define "transmutation of species" in a phrase at least?
*Under "Some definitions" we read that it would be helpful to know some additional definitions in order to understand the complex definition of evolution. After listing all of the definitions, I think it might be a good idea to rephrase the definition using the words from the newly learned words - it helps readers retain the information and it reminds them why they were reading the list in the first place.
*To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it might be useful to consider the gene pool of a non-evolving population. - This did not help me much, I'm afraid. I started to get a little bit confused about where the article was going. I wonder if it would be better to present all of the "basic" evolution material up front, especially the evidence, and then present this kind of material. 
*Paleontology, the study of fossils, supports Darwin's original idea that all living creatures are related. Fossils also provide evidence that accumulated changes over long periods have led to the diverse forms of life we see today. - Explain how in a short phrase or sentence in this introductory paragraph.
*Perhaps the best known of these transitional fossils is Archaeopteryx. - For a lay reader, no fossil is well-known, except perhaps for Lucy.
Some of the language in the article, in an effort to achieve accessibility, has, I think become a little simplistic or vague:
:*EX: This is called natural selection, a major part of evolution. - "major part" is vague - I think we can say "mechanism" or some such word or phrase.
:*EX: Since the beginning of life, evolution has transformed the first species into more and more different species - how about "an increasing number of different species"?
:*EX: The idea of common descent developed in the 18th century - was it a theory yet? (The word "idea" comes up a lot in the article - it is actually better to be more precise, I think.)
:*EX: While on the voyage of the Beagle from 1831 to 1836, Charles Darwin found that fossil species were unexpectedly closely related to modern species of organisms in the same area, and the territory of species suggested that they had spread with changes from nearby species rather than just arising in place. - This is all very vague - what area? "arising in place" doesn't really make sense...
:*EX: In the case of humans, some claim that human embryos pass through amphibian then reptilian stages. - What some?
Layout:
*I don't know what the page looks like on other browsers, but on mine, the first image is smushed up against the TOC. I wonder if there is a way to fix this, because it makes the page look a little disorganized.
*Since this is the "introduction to evolution" page for non-scientists, I would start the page with a colorful image. Pander. :)
*I think that it's great that there are so many images, but the article looks a little cluttered at points (do we need the mice, for example?) and sometimes all of the images line up on one side of the article (e.g., at the end), which is less aesthetically pleasing than a staggered arrangement.
*The numbered list under "Hardy-Weinberg principle" is oddly smushed up against the moth pictures in my browser. It is hard to tell it is a numbered list at first glance.
I would suggest that a copy editor with some scientific knowledge work on this article. There are some odd shifts in tense, pronoun referent problems, and other small grammatical issues (I have listed some examples below), but I would hesitate to ask someone who is ignorant of the subject matter to edit it!
:*EX: A more sophisticated definition of evolution is "a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool." - more sophisticated than what? comparatives need a comparison :)
:*EX: In a population of mice that inhabit a barn, suppose there are only two variations in the gene controlling fur color. - Start with the "suppose" - you are supposing the population and the barn, too :)
:*EX: Today, the fossil record is more complete, and serves as a chronological record documenting the emergence of new, more complex species from simpler ancestral forms. - repetition of "record"; "more complete" than when? and, can the record actually be more complete? wouldn't it be something like "we have recovered a greater percentange of the fossil record" or something?
:*EX: part of the basis of classifying the vertebrate group (which include humans) - "includes" - "group" is singular
:*EX: Scientists have struggled to find a precise and all-inclusive definition of a species, but the classic definition, used here, was developed by Ernst Mayr (1904-2005). - I'm not sure why there is a "but" here.
:*EX: There is a tremendous amount of evidence that is explained by evolution. - Passive construction is weak and you want this to be a strong statement.
*Since this is an evolution article and evolution is such a contentious topic in at least one major English-speaking country, I would suggest adding many more citations. (See evolution, for example.) For this same reason, I would make this statement even stronger: The theory of evolution is widely accepted among the scientific community.
Query: "Nature, red in tooth and claw" - from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (1849) - Why is this considered a reference to Darwin, when Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859? Is it a reference to other evolutionary thought, perhaps? (To me, it looks like a reference to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.) 
If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow this is a very helpful, very thorough review! this is what we needed. I really appreciate all the work and care that went into this review. This was a LOT of work to do all this for us. Thank you so much.--Filll 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you found it helpful. Awadewit | talk 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow indeed...  thank you for your willingness to invest the time. Now I have a little sympathy for my kids after I shred their essays. It is clearly not "good". If we should be able to incorporate all the changes, I suggest we skip "good" and go for "featured" status. The worse that could happen is another failed banner to add to the collection at the top! --Random Replicator 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: Our helpful reviewer is of course quite correct. This poem came out before Darwin made his theory public. However, it was quickly adopted by others as a phrase that might be associated with evolution:
*Charles Darwin-A Short Biography, Coe College Biology Department, 1999
*Red in Tooth and Claw, Gary Martin, Phrases, Sayings and Idioms at The Phrase Finder, 1996.
*Start of preface to 1976 edition, Excerpt from The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. (2nd Edition 1989) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
*4. The Evolutionary Implications of Living with the Ice Age, William James Burroughts, Climate Change in Prehistory: The End of the Reign of Chaos, Cambridge University Press, 2005,  
These are just a few of what could be found. The bottom line is, this phrase was seized on by both pro and anti-evolution groups and individuals, and it has become famous.--Filll 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see. However, the box where the quotation appears has this caption: As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include. Those sentences make it seem like the writers quoted are referencing Darwin, which is not the case with Tennyson. Perhaps these sentences could be reworded? Awadewit | talk 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nature Red in Tooth and Claw]] 

message: This eliminates the redundancy ... of that I am sure. As to providing a glimps in the introduction of the upcoming content ... very difficult to do when we also need simplicity.  But all excuses aside ... here it goes:
:Evolution is the process of change that has transformed life on earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes life today. Evolution occurs through changes in genes, the "recipes" for constructing the organism. When an organism reproduces, small random changes in the genes make the offspring different from the parent. Sometimes these changes help the offspring survive to reproduce. When this happens, the genes for the beneficial traits are passed on to the organism's own offspring, becoming more common in the next generation. Genes that do not help organisms reproduce may become rarer or eliminated from the population. This is called natural selection, a primary mechanism driving evolution. Through natural selection, populations of organisms slowly change over time as they adapt to changes in their environments. 
:
:The scientific theory of evolution — the explanation for how evolution occurs — states that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor at some point in the distant past. This idea is called common descent. Since the beginning of life, evolution has transformed the first species into an increased number of different species as life has found a variety of ways to survive and flourish. This has resulted in the many diverse forms of life that exist today.
:
:The theory of evolution has itself undergone changes over time. For example, Gregor Mendel’s contributions in the field of genetics resulted in a clear understanding of the source for variations in offspring. The scientific field of population genetics (resulting from the merging of evolution theory and genetics) contributed to the understanding of the mechanisms that allows for the development of new species. Speciation, the origination of new species from ancestral forms, lies at the foundation of the theory’s claim that all organisms are related. Evolution is supported by an immense body of scientific evidence. There is as much or more evidence for evolution as for many other scientific theories.  Advancements in the  fields of molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy all contribute to an understanding of the evolutionary process.
: 
:There is no serious disagreement among biological scientists about the validity of evolution, though some aspects of evolution, such as the mechanisms and processes that drive it, are subject to some professional debate. More than 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support evolution. It is the foundation of the research conducted in all fields of biology. 
One goal is to incorporate "key concepts" into the body of the text, so that list at the end disappears. I got a few of them in the intro. I'll leave this here since it is a major rewrite to see if it floats. Thanks --Random Replicator 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've noticed the tweaks ... but they do not elimate the redundancy in the two opening paragraps. Can I assume this version was not worthy of a foundtion? Or should I go ahead and insert this so that this can be the subject of future edits? --Random Replicator 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, didn't notice this on the talk page. This is better than my half-fixed version. Sub it in. Tim Vickers 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not know if this would fly with the style police, but I would like to see a very short paragraph of maybe 3 sentences or so at the very start of the LEAD describing in very elementary and general terms what evolution is. I want readers to be able to come in quickly, see a quick "definition" almost, and then not feel they have to read further. The present LEAD reads more like an introduction to a book, rather than the LEAD to an encyclopedia article. The WP:MOS might not permit it, but I would like the present LEAD to be in a new section called "introduction", and then a new paragraph be inserted ahead of it as LEAD (some articles do this). Barring this, just a simple paragraph before the current paragraph would help, even at the risk of some duplication. Comments?--Filll 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?--Filll  I added the reverted version; before I read this. Agreed on the "bookish" nature of the opening line. The problem is I can't think of an all inclusive one line definition that would appease everyone. If we have an intro --- to the intro --- in any form or fashion,  it may be viewed as redundant. I would lean toward a powerful, effective, first line definition added to the opening section as it stands. I reviewed numerous source, none seem to be able to define evolution in brief as we need. The other challenge was capturing the major topics in  the opening. My attempt seems weak to me. The mickey-mouse changes (numerous as they are) I can attack soon. It is the intro and incorporation of key points that need monitoring. And eventually someone needs to re-write the summary to address the concerns posed by Snalwibma  --Random Replicator 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write of the Introduction section. 

message: Yes, it would be a good idea to integrate "key points" into the body of the text, as said above by Awadewit and Random Replicator. But we must then watch the "Summary" and make sure it repeats a handful of these key points - some of them are really important, and need to be drawn attention to at the end. I am amused by Awadewit's suggestion that the section should be renamed "Common misconceptions". That is exactly what it was once called. It was later semi-integrated into the "Summary", and its title changed, in order to avoid acting as a magnet for controversy - hence its rather semi-detached nature. Not an excuse, but at least an explanation of the current position! Snalwibma 08:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I noticed that as well. It is pretty funny about how this evolved. And when they were short bullet points, they were more palatable than in the longer, harder to read form that they have "evolved" into at present. The same is true of the template at the start with the simple description of evolution. People have frantically wanted to include more detail, basically destroying the value of this aid. If people shove too much detail into these, they ruin them.--Filll 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Key points"

message: Do we need to mention them or not in this article?--Filll 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No - they were add ons to clarify that Darwin wasn't first. I re-worded Darwins contributions to eliminate the need for them. I think. --Random Replicator 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  buffon and lamarck 

message: I restated the opening section to imporove clarity. The comcept is challenging. But I stand behind this version as being "reasonably" accessable. It is too important to leave off and too deep to make too simple. If anyone can build a better mouse trap have at it. I also fixed "suppose" I suppose.--Random Replicator 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks good so far.--Filll 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I classified this as inaccessible and not that important for understanding the basics of evolution in the main article. It is certainly very important from the academic viewpoint, but I'm surprised people think it is needed in what I thought was a non-technical introduction. Tim Vickers 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It does look a bit odd in an introductory article, but I think it is clear, and works well enough. Snalwibma 09:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hardy weinberg 

message: I have been very busy on the suggested improvements. Please note the changes as denoted by "strikes" on the edit list above. Some notes have been added as well. Add you own as they apply. Thanks --Random Replicator 13:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit List 

message: Should we put these in another article with a link to the appropriate section? I like them, but maybe we slip them somewhere else.--Filll 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll restore them; perhaps think a little harder on how to incorporate into text here. Could we include a section called "misconceptions" and write it up in paragraph form?  List seem to be easy targets for those who critique. This one especially. And to some degree, I agree, if it is key then it should be in the body of the paper. I have actually squeezed several into the text itself. I'll put back them ones that fell prey to the delete botton.--Random Replicator 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The incorporation of keypoints into the text was such an obvious need. What happen was, we wrote a simple version, then later came up with really good points. Lazy on my part not to work them into the text a long time ago. But I must say, it makes for a very powerful article with them incorporated into the text. I am pleased with the outcome.--Random Replicator 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key points removed

message: Introduction to Evolution A much better layout. Would you please monitor the page and make adjustments as needed?! We might substitute a few soon; the mice and perhaps the dogs to something less fringe to the topic. Thanks again--Random Replicator 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I love the dogs and the mice! Well...if consensus is to remove them...I guess...--Filll 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I like them too. I know I suggested removing some pics, but to be truthful, I couldn't actually point to any I think should go. ornis (t) 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are cute; but really do not relay any information other than to people who might not be aware of what a black or white mouse looks like. The dogs on the other hand provide a dramatic example of the effects of artificial selection. I just wish it was less busy ... more dog and less backgound. I have been scouring the internet, legal pictures are as rare as hen's teeth. Also, although not ordained by God, there was the suggestion for a dramatic / colorful intro picture at the top. Any ideas before we (ahhh you) perfect the format? --Random Replicator 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some nice PD colour plates here perhaps we could crop down one of the finch illustrations, and include it with an explanation of why they're so significant. ornis (t) 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution, cross-posted from ornis' page 

message: We could perhaps work in the finch image as suggested above as a lead and then explain how they relate to Darwin and evolution. They meet the colorful criteria as well as a legitimate historical connection. However, I don't have a clue which one of those birds is a finch!
But we are targeting High School ... I'm thinking a dinosaur panorama. Nothing screams evolution more than a dinosaur. Dinosaurs are cool! I found one artist page [] that is phenomenal. I'm not too proud to beg. Karen Carr is heavily involved in education, she may be willing to part with something? Should I give it a try? The odds are slim; but I did get permission on a rare orchid picture so you never know. --Random Replicator 13:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's give it a try. She has fantastic art! Make sure she knows she will be heavily credited as the creator with a link back to her site etc.--Filll 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made the plea! --Random Replicator 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead image 

message: Could someone archive everything above GA fail ( --- the second one ---)  Christ that's embarrassing  --Random Replicator 13:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Filll 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: This article is intended as an generally accessible introduction to the subject. For the main encyclopedia article, please see Evolution.
Should it be "a" instead of "an"? I can find that line in the edit mode ... --Random Replicator 13:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. You have to edit the template, itself. ornis (t) 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know what's more correct, my inclination would be two words hyphenated (life-forms). ornis (t) 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like a reasonable compromise .... went with life-forms. --Random Replicator 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've arranged the moths, one on either side of the text. ornis (t) 06:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually -  very cool. --Random Replicator 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The mice are blocking the number list on a "21" monitor. --Random Replicator 12:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I had suggested a dinosaur panorama at the top to capture the teenage reader. With that desire, I went to an artist web site. Karen Carr's art  is incredible. So I inquired / begged:
: Response:
I would be delighted for you to use my images in the manner described, and I am very familiar with Wikipedia's use and typical copyright licenses...
so yes! Please do. Please let me know if I can help in any way!
Best regards
Karen''
:We are working out the details.  :)    --Random Replicator 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Picture 

message: I need to go back and develop some sense of conformity in the "citations - notes". I'll likely do that tonight when I don't have to fight over computer time. I'm not done yet --- so hold back on any harsh criticism until I drop the flag please. --Random Replicator 23:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made a great deal of progress. I applaud you!--Filll 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running out of ink. 

message: My ink pen is dry. --Random Replicator 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you go through the entire list? If so, maybe we should proof read it a couple of times, and have a few friends read it, then try again. --Filll 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I crossed off the list as I went --- it is somewhere above along with some notes.  All issues were addressed except the mouse blocking the number list. When everyone has a shot at it perhaps we should close with some peer review. I'm not calling for G/A--- I am 0/2. If there are mistakes -- I am blind to them ---. I made a lot of edits without providing explanations --- hope no one took offense. We should contact Snalwibma; he has a lot of time invested as well and might desire input. Have at Tim!!! --Random Replicator 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True and done thanks. --Random Replicator 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minor change Tim ... on abiogensis to focus on evolution not explaining life's origins. --Random Replicator 03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  deicates  ummmm --Random Replicator 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  subversive humor? "who's this aimed at? post-anal"--Random Replicator 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A major change is that I have cut all discussion of DNA sequence and genetic codes and used vague "similarities" and "differences" instead. This dealt with the problem that most organisms have exactly the same genetic code, they just differ in genetic information. Explaining this in simple terms is difficult without a terminology info-dump, best to just provide the ideas. Tim Vickers 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So What now? 

message: I can not help but be of the opinion, at least at some personal level of consciousness, that the shaking of the evolutionary tree in effort to remove some of the, let us say, excess verbiage, only served, at some fundamental level, to remove the overall allure of the article on evolution; which at least, to some degree, most certainly had at the least a diminutive bit of hard edge as a consequence of the descriptive terminology that was most vigilantly crafted into each and every  possible sentence that was placed on the page in a way, that without question and to a great deal of certainty, lead to a flow of conceptualization most easily mastered by the somewhat average if not typical student of the high school setting; at least that is the way I perceive it from my own personal sphere of existence. 
Actually, stripping down the extra verbiage is a good idea; we may want to have several individuals pursue it with that in mind. When everyone is finished, maybe we can run it through a readability formula to see where it falls. The passage above was rated 20.1 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale. --Random Replicator 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the course of my own continuing self-wikification, I visited the What Wikipedia is not article. Because WP is not a blog it is unlikely to have nearly as much personality as many of them do. Because it is not original research it is difficult to insert bold paraphrases and syntheses. I miss those things. But I would really be sad if we didn't have Wikipedia and if we didn't have standards a lot like the ones in effect. And thank goodness for the talk pages. DCDuring 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly did you mean to say above??? AshLin 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RR will of course correct me if I've missed his meaning, but I believe the first paragraph was intended as a humorous illustration of the problem the recent edits where intended to address. ornis (t) 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea --- they don't get my jokes in class either. Oh well :( --Random Replicator 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry. I'm in no position to chastise, so please don't imagine that's what I intended. I took the comment as sincerely, not ironically, wistful. It didn't seem like simple humor. I still feel the impulse to inject more of my unverifiable thoughts, syntheses, and original research into Wikipedia articles. DCDuring 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  As do I, which was evident by the edits made by Tim. Most involved removal of the baggage words, a weakness I have in writing style. Sometimes Encylopedias seems almost too sterile; but essential, I guess, for a clear and accurate understanding. I thought my endless sentence was a bit of extreme irony; hopefully Tim will read the second paragraph where I agree to the changes as a positive force or he may not come back to help.--Random Replicator 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: At the current rate of editing, the half-life of this article's text is only 5 weeks. DCDuring 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spoken like a true scientist; in a few weeks it will cease to exist; or at least be undectable. Perhaps an "under construction flag" is appropriate. I assume once the flurry of interest is over it will stabilize to something more akin to an inert gas.--Random Replicator 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment of recent edits 

message: I wish i was aware of such a template when I was revamping. I think it has merit; as per discussion by DCDuring At least as long as it is undergoing such dramatic changes. I guess someone will proclaim it stable at some point. And can remove it.--Random Replicator 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Construction 

message: Darwin, like many of his predecessors including Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment.
LaMarck just seems to be hanging there. If he is just one among many then I guess he is not worthy of bringing up. If he is recognized as the primary force behinds the misconception, then why mention the others. The sentence has no flow. 
Darwin, like many of his predecessors, incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment.
or 
Darwin, and his predecessor, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment,
or 
Your version.--Random Replicator 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, without commenting on whether or not lamarck was a "driving force" behind the misconception that acquired characteristics can be inherited, his name is rather synonymous with the idea. ornis (t) 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lamarck should stay, as he is so well known as an emblem of that particular misconception, and the article should help the reader place Darwin in relation to Lamarck. How best to do it, though? Maybe delete Lamarck from this sentence and insert him a little later in the paragraph: "Darwin, like many of his predecessors, incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment. Pre-Darwinian views ... (... longer necks). The misconception (inheritance of acquired characteristics, now most strongly associated with the name of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) that body structures ..." Maybe that's a bit convoluted, but I'm sure moving Jean-Baptiste on a sentence or two could do the trick. 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. --24.106.223.131 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tried your suggestion Snalwibma did I get it right? --Random Replicator 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Marck 

message: This line is thrown out there in the Mendel section.
"A gene is a segment of a DNA molecule on a chromosome that directs the physical development and behavior of the organism."
We have defined gene with two terms (DNA) (Chromosome) that are even less likely known than gene. Suggestions?--Random Replicator 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions 

message: In the section Species. Just above prezygotic barriers there an essential sentence that leads into that section, but because of formating of headings it seems lost for some reason. --Random Replicator 23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this single sentence "Reproductive barriers that prevent interbreeding can be classified as either prezygotic barriers or postzygotic barriers" Seems to be lost above the to "large subheadings it is announcing. My perception perhaps. But it just don't feel right! Not major in the scheme of things - I'm just runin out of things to pick apart. --Random Replicator 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I stuck in another heading. It looks a bit better, but it offends my sense of structure to have only one sub-heading directly under "species". BTW, pre- and post-zygotic seem a smidgeon technical for the title of the sub-heads in this article. DCDuring 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  format 

message: Other than me "piddling" on it it seems to not be experiencing the mad edits I had expected - so I'm dropping the "under construction". --Random Replicator 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   DCDuring, do you are anyone you know have skills in copy/edit? Every time I read it I find another grammatical or spelling error - which means there are likely more; kinda like cockroaches; if you see one there 50 more hiding in the wall. --Random Replicator 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RR, I don't know of anyone who'd be willing besides me. Give me a little time. Is there any particular time frame to this? DCDuring 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random - you've done a fantastic job. I too will work my way through the article over the next day or so and apply some insecticide to those cockroaches. Snalwibma 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction 

message: I made a first stab at a copyedit of this article. It definitely needs more. Some problems with wording. Punctuation problems. Some paragraphs and sentences that are too long. But it is coming.--Filll 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A start at copyediting 

message: Could this benefit (as does Wikipedia) from a listing of what evolution is not?  
* It is not a passing on of traits that arise from any behavior or other act of organisms (no matter how many proto-giraffes strained to reach higher-up leaves that action didn't have any effect on the lengthening of their necks.)
* It is not a directed process (there is no underlying progressing-to-higher organisms character to evolution.  Most of the time the final "highest" organism is regarded as man.)
* It is not, in any of its steps, certain.  If there is a wombat that is the sole one of its species to have inherited a genetic advantage that arose from a mutation that occurred in the DNA of one of its parents it could still be eaten by a predator or squashed by a falling tree before it breeds, preventing the advantage from being passed on.  Same for it's offspring.  There's a strong randomness to the process.)
* It does not proceed with mechanical precision.  A genetic advantage may have gotten introduced into the gene pool many generations before it becomes an advantage.  (Frequently evolution is explained by a mutation creating an advantage in language that implies the mutation happened just at the right time.  More likely the mutation occurred in some previous generation and got carried along because the members of the species had sufficient survivability to keep the species from falling extinct.)
*  (This is OR, perhaps)  It's not so much "survival if the fittest" as it is "fitness of the survivors."  If they survived that might be because of a particular fitness or it might be that, overall, the species didn't face any significant challenges as a species.  In general, it isn't possible to give a pat answer to why a species survived or survives other than that it's fit enough to do so under the circumstances.  It's when things get tough that "fittest" really starts to matter.  It may be true that if there is a predator for a species then "fittest" does become an important factor, at least in regards to determining which members of the species become food for the predator.
What else is it not?   (Or is this a bad approach to pursue?) --Minasbeede 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An approach of addressing all the possible misconceptions; bad or good I'm not sure, but it would require a major shift in tone and structure of the article. Maybe a new article called Misconceptions in Evoution would be easier to acheive than rewriting this one.--Random Replicator 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What evolution is not 

message: Outstanding appearance, but I'm sure there'll be some comments, like the first graphic ought to be farther to the right. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to screw up this lovely layout. DCDuring 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I don't know what to do what about the tree of life image. I think it either needs to replace Darwin, the overview, or be deleted. Also, I was thinking the "Evolution portal" should be more prominent, but I'm not sure where to put it at the moment. Awadewit | talk 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if a layout maven were watching. Is there a way to summon layout help or do you have learn and do it yourself? DCDuring 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are layout mavens. Whenever I get in a wikicode-bind, I ask the help desk. I think, generally, though, layout is something that you have learn yourself by looking at other pages. Awadewit | talk 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Review by Awadewit
This article is much better than the last time I read it. Kudos to the editors. My points are mostly regarding prose and organization - they are minor. I hope to see this article promoted through GAC and FAC in the next few months.
Question: When the term is used "For Example" I'm hoping that does not translate to "there are many more --- I just didn't list them" ??? --Random Replicator 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what it means. I didn't think there was a reason to list all of the instances of whatever issue I was pointing out since the editors here are so intelligent. :) Awadewit | talk 04:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thought so. Clearly I've under-estimated the standards for GA status and more importantly over-estimated my own skills in composition. I'll attempt to squash the cockroaches listed below. I do not recommend any future attempts at GA status until someone with skills beyond my on has cleared this entry and recommends the attempt.--Random Replicator 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone has different standards for GA. Since I teach composition at a university, I probably have a higher standard for the prose than others, but I don't necessarily think that is bad. Awadewit | talk 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are fortunate that you have taken an interest in the project. It has made for a much better entry; it is only my ego that has suffered :(   --Random Replicator 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awadewit | talk I didn't realize you were sick --- geez--- this article could be enough to put you over the edge. I truly hope it is nothing serious and I hope you get better soon. You have given us plenty to work on; so take a break ... ok ....--Random Replicator 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Relocated section so that it preceeds speciation and made yet another attempt to clarify. --Random Replicator 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow shame on us!!!!!--Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Tried --Random Replicator 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not sure I reminded them --- but did give heads up it was coming? --Random Replicator 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THIS was indeed a weakness, THESE changes should solve THAT problem. Actually the improvement was dramatic by defining "This" as far as readability goes. I think I got all of THEM. THAT writting tip actually was valuable. Thanks  User talk:Awadewit. We should all watch for THEM kind of mistakes in the future. --Random Replicator 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Got them both. --Random Replicator 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: Removed it... it ws an after thought add on I made overkill perhaps--Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  At present, ???--Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Note: went with italics --- may still be some quotation formats I missed. --Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I had mentioned above, copy editing is definitely needed. We are very lucky to have our reviewer than we do! I wonder if we will ever get all this little problems out of it? I will have to put my thinking cap on to try to fix the box with the Tennyson quote at the end. Not sure how to word that, to be honest.--Filll 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could copy edit the article in a few days, if you want. Although my knowledge of evolution is limited to popular science books and high school biology, I think I can do this. For all of my horrific mistakes, there is always "revert". (I have been helping out over at introduction to general relativity as well - there we hash out the changes on the talk page first. That is another option.) If you don't want a layperson doing the copy editing, I totally understand and would not be offended in any way. Awadewit | talk 05:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to Do. / From Peer Review Page 

message: It has been suggested that we drop Hardy-Weinberg --- which essentially means removing the section on population genetics. It would shorten the article and make it more accessable to the general population. Of course the mice and moths would go with it ....thoughts?--Random Replicator 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is that complicated. I like it. And I find it informative. If people want a really simplified article, they do not have to read so far, or can read the Simple Wikipedia version. This article has to have some meat in it, so that it can be used as a springboard to the main evolution article. What it should be, is a gap-filler between the Simple Wikipedia version and the main evolution article. As such, it should start out very gently (which is what I think we do), and then slowly introduce a few new concepts (again I think we do that) so that the reader is left, possibly after several readings of the entire article, with sufficient understanding to be able to tackle the main article.--Filll 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The effects of gene flow, mutations, population size, etc... are fundamental in understanding evolution at the population level. It is not a topic avoided by general biology text. The mathematical relationship is complicated; but it is not essential to understanding the overall principals. I like the example of the mice - perhaps not Encylopedic; but beneficial in the understanding how the mechanism works. I would be more inclined to  agree to moving it after "The evidence for evolution". Hardy-weinberg is the foundation for understanding speciation, so it should preceed that. Perhaps someone can move the population genetics section after evidence; then have a stab at "simplifying it". However, lets wait until others have voiced their views. --Random Replicator 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to clarify the Population Genetics material. It may have transformed into a "bookish style” due to the hypothetical examples. This will go against the grain of some who prefer the encyclopedic style of writing. I justify it because our role is to interpret the "main" article; which gives us more leeway. There is nothing more I can do. Perhaps it should come down to a vote (Keep or Delete) followed by a brief rational (despite wikipedia's policy which discourages voting on issues). --Random Replicator 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Genetics 

message: My flurry of edits is not an effort to revert the contributions from others since my last flurry of edits. I was attempting to address the list; which has valuable suggestions. It may appear that I am too controlling if you just look at the edit history. Actually, most of the edits by others have remained untouched. It will never reach GA status without the efforts of the communal mind. On that note I saw an offer to copy/edit by Awadewit. That would be greatly appreciated and likely save me hours of smashing cockroachs; especially challenging since my boots are pointed. --Random Replicator 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats the best I can do wth the list. I'm done now ... --Random Replicator 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will copy edit the article in the next few days. Please let me know immediately if I introducing errors. Awadewit | talk 03:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rash of edits 

message: Ok. As I copy edit, I'm just going to start listing all of my questions here. I hope I am not being a pest. Let me know if I am and I'll stop.
Fossils:
*Science has discovered a wide range of evidence for evolution, with fossil records being the most prominent. - "prominent" is vague - what about something like "most fruitful"? Is that accurate? 
::Perhaps it is not any more significant than other means: ...wide range of evidence, including the fossil record --- or some such 
statement RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See new version. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Research in the field of Palentology, the study of fossils, supports ... RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't see a great need--- but I'n not opposed. RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think many people don't really know what fossils are. I won't attempt to write one. It's a suggestion to think about. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are exceptions --- to most things. But I'm ok with the way it stands here; if it is not grossly misleading. If it is then we need to re-evaluate; perhaps input from the professionals is need here.RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to check. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I actually mentioned the flood in previous editions --- but I decided to avoid direct challenges to the bible. RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-confrontational approach. Fine with me. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Your right. Perhaps a statement:  Cuvier's observations validated the idea that species have come and gone throught the ages and there is a general relationship between the the age of the fossil and its relative complexity. His explanation for their disppearance via catostrophic events is not supported today. I'm struggling here!!! RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps: "Cuvier's observations validated extinction and the correlation between a fossil's age and its complexity; however, his theory of catastrophism has been superseded by.....? Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Delete Linneaus: Go with "Taxonomy is the branch of biology that names and classifies all living things. Scientists use morphological and genetic similarities to assist them in categorizing life forms based on ancestral relationships. That should solve the problem? RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See what you think. Awadewit | talk 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sure ... guess it was a subliminal shot at creationist... go with your version. RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mine was overt shot at creationists. Let me know which you want. Awadewit | talk 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope my insertions within your text are ok ... was trying to connect the reponse to the new "list". I'm going to take a break as well. Your edits have significantly improved the entry. Many thanks. Perhaps, with time the GA status can be achieved. Random Replicator --- (school's machines will not let me login) --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy editing questions

message: Is there a way to combine all the Failed templates and delete templates at the top into a "drop-down menue"  show / hide article milestones? If so --- would/could you do it? --Random Replicator 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't know of one. Sorry. Awadewit | talk 07:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top