Talk:Evolution/Archive 15

message: I have created a general purpose template to be used to remind people that the purpose of talk pages is to improve the article.  Here is the template:
Remember that article talk pages are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.
You just need to type  to use it.
Now if there are no objections I shall start using this template when I feel it is appropriate.  I didn't think it sensible to make a template particularly for the purpose of this article's talk page as I think that would diminish rather than enhance its usefullness.  Also other talk pages may well benefit from such a template.
I will also encourage others to step in with the use of this template when it looks like we're getting off topic.  I personally would not advocate the removal of offending discussions as this may well prove counterproductive.
I may later create an alternative page such as I suggested above (together with links to it from this page).  As such a page would be entirely voluntary I wouldn't expect that anyone would object to that.  I guess also that this list of previously discussed issues might be a good idea.  However, I'm not up for implementing that myself.  Barnaby dawson 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work, it will surely be useful. --Ignignot 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh but remember to use the subst: thingie. --Ignignot 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Nnp 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some resolution of this issue perhaps?

message: http://wikigadugi.org/wiki/Evolution
Almost, but not quite the same...
:That's pretty messy, but is it a problem or something? Homestarmy 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is at it again. WAS 4.250 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a Wikipedia mirror -- it took its content from an earlier version of this article, but didn't import the impages or the templates. Nothing much to look at. It seems to be satisfying the requirements of the GFDL. --Fastfission 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, didn't this guy work for Car Talk? Vern Merkey, of Merkey Research? --FOo 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone seen this site? 

message: "...Pasado's concern, while valid, does not apply in context because the section deals with rel/phi..." is essentially a cop-out.  If the quotes around unguided are meant to indicate so-called then nix the quotes and use the adjective.  Otherwise it reads as if evolution is inherently unguided, which is simply not the case.  The assumption that everyone will understand the meaning of "unguided" just because it's in the "rel/phi" section is spurious (as we have seen).  While the use of "unguided" in quotes on the ID page worked in the context it was used, it does not work here.  In other words, address the issue rather than offering wak excuses why it is aceptable.  •Jim62sch• 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim62sch, firstly, please remain calm, this is hardly an issue to get all worked up about. Secondly, could you please explain your concern with the use of "unguided"? I'm not following your reasoning as to why it "does not work here". And, ummm, someone slap me with a wet snoek if I'm wrong, but surely evolution is unguided. That's the whole point. No? (ps. for those who do not follow the history like hawks, Jim62sch is quoting from my edit summary when I reverted Pasado's edit). Mikker (...) 01:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being calm...you should see when I'm mad.  ;)  You guys figured it out anyway.  The key is that "unguided" is used by creationists to say that evolution is "baaaaadddd". •Jim62sch• 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You're all mad, I'm the only sane one here" - Major Dennis Blodnok. ...dave souza, talk 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, bit of a misunderstanding I see... It seems we both mistook each other for creationists. Quite amusing really. :) Mikker (...) 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is funny, especially in light of the fact that the closest either of us may come to some form of creationism is creating new wiki articles. (Wait, does that make us intelligent designers? ;P •Jim62sch• 11:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just intelligent critters. AvB ÷ talk 13:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to being called intelligent. --Ignignot 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what the understanding here is that there are many people who wish to believe in both evolution and God, specifically, a god that they believe "set evolution in motion". Therefore, some could argue that it is not necessarily unguided. However, I think considering the "god set it in motion" part isn't actually part of the theory at all, I would think there are grounds to argue that "unguided" would fit. It's possible that I could just degenerate into an argument from silence however, so i'd prefer to keep this short for now heh. Homestarmy 01:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could be guided or unguided, like whether or not their is a deity, evolution doesn't care one way or another. To say that it is specifically unguided is therefore incorrect and misleading. JoshuaZ 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there is no evidence it is guided (and there isn't any as far as I know), surely reasonable assumptions of onus together with Occam's Razor would force one to conclude it is unguided? Or at a minimum assume for the time being that guidedness has not been shown? From that perspective, it seems reasonable to say in a scientific article about evolution that it is unguided. (Of course, it is still logically possible that it is guided, the point is it would work even when unguided). Mikker (...) 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about whether or not it is guided. You are bringing in principles such as Occam's razor from outside the theory. At best you could say that "The theory of evolution is consistent with unguided etc."JoshuaZ 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair enough. As an atheist, the main attraction for me of evolutionary theory is its ability to explain the appearance of design without positing a designer, so perhaps I'm being biased. On my understanding, science deals only with what can be tested empirically, so this question is probably outside the scope of science. On my reading of the sentence though, it suggested some religious people are uncomfortable with evolution precisely because it can work without guidance. (which is true). Anyway, Dave souza's edit seems to be a step in the right direction. Mikker (...) 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evolutionary theory is not atheistic.  Adding any notions that are undermines the article and gives the creationists a valid cause for action. Pasado 05:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about that one, though (as we've just discussed) this isn't the place to argue about it. Mikker (...) 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, it's guided by natural selection. Having tried out "arose through natural processes without divine guidance", changed it to "without supernatural intervention" and added clarification, YMMV. ...02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, it better be! My point (and I think the point of the sentence before it suddenly became controversial) was that evolution is (or "can be") unguided by an "higher" intelligence. It is the blind watchmaker and whatnot. Mikker (...) 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I've spent too much time on the ID page ;)  Anyway, thanks for getting the (minor/major/creation v evolution) issue resolved. •Jim62sch• 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All concerned happy with the edits Dave and I have made? Mikker (...) 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Re-added literal, as the conflict vanishes if religious texts are allegorical: much of the fuss is over a few words about "created kinds". Also TE believers probably outnumber creationists. To quote the Archbish of Canterbury, "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." ...dave souza, talk 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, I deleted it for mainly stylistic reasons ("literal reading of teleological notions...") looked a bit weird to me. I've now figured out what you meant. Mikker (...) 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the Notions clause because it did not add clarity; it caused confusion, at least in me.  I'm not sure we need to address the fact that evolutionary theory does not tell a 'feel good' story. To the extent needed, it is the job of religion and spirituality to provide meaning to life, not science.  Science cannot claim to answer all the important questions. Pasado 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but given that this is a common objection to evolution(and arguably the underlying cause of almost all rejection of evolution), it should probably be included in some form. JoshuaZ 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tada... Note distinction between Teleology and Teleological argument. ...dave souza, talk 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  WAS, does this addresses your 'feel good' story concern? Pasado 15:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it fully and completely addresses the concerns I had. Thanks. Wonderful job. WAS 4.250 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to, but it most certainly isn't my point. •Jim62sch• 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The orthogenetic hypothesis died under the weight of the evidence for modern synthesis many years ago.  Perhaps the entire 'Social and religious controversies' section should be removed and made into a separate article about the relationship between religion and evolution.  We can then focus on the biological science article at hand. Pasado 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was explicitly historical in nature, though I think the "unguidedness" still disturbs people (hence all of that empty talk about "tornadoes in junk heaps" and things like that). And there are already sub-articles for this section. If you'd like to focus on the biological science part, please feel free to, and you can leave the part on modern and historical religious/social controversies to other people. I admit I'm a bit frustrated because you seem to be unable to read a sentence in context. --Fastfission 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraph in question is currently limited to "natural processes" versus the "supernatural". Natural processes can be believed to be caused by or causing things related to the teleological or related to orthogenesis. That could be a seperate paragraph, but Pasado seems to think this subsection is too long as is. WAS 4.250 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Pasado is wrong, and I think the emphasis on natural v. supernatural stresses the point quite a bit from what it used to be and what it ought to be. The question of natural/supernatural is covered just fine in my opinion with the original two sentences of the paragraph (which are still there); the discussion of guided/unguided was somehow turned into natural/supernatural and now is just redundant. I think the original point has been lost, and I don't think Pasado understands what it was to begin with. There was nothing at all wrong with the original version, as far as I can tell. --Fastfission 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? None of this appears to have much to do with what we were talking about. •Jim62sch• 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can make your point without setting up a false dilemma (Theistic evolution = supernatural guidance, Evolutionary theory = no supernatural guidance), please do.  To apply those labels to evolutionary theory is incorrect and misleading. Pasado 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good, Dave.  Thanks. Pasado 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and Philosopy - "unguided"

message: This discussion was getting a bit long, so a subdivision. Thanks, Fastfission, for pointing out that this paragraph was getting repetitive and losing the point. I've gone over the whole paragraph and tried to put the issues raised in a more coherent way, making it clear that it's creationists who call it "unguided evolution". I consiered pointing out that theistic evolution includes concepts like the realm of God differing from the realm of science, or God using the process of evolution to achieve His purpose, but thought it best to keep things concise. ...dave souza, talk 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, Dave.  Thanks. Pasado 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divine guidance

message: This article says:
:Adherents of theistic evolution, for example, believe that all the standard religious teachings about God and the universe are compatible with the modern science of evolution.
While Theistic evolution says:
:it's the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution. WAS 4.250 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... I literally copied and pasted the sentence from the Theistic evolution article and changed it on the fly to fit the context of the evolution article. I changed "classical" to "standard" because they seem broadly synonymous in context (also, "classical" is repeated in the para below), and "modern science of evolution" seemed to make more sense than the original sentence. And, to answer WAS's second concern, I guess it depends. I'm sure some people think it is compatible "for them" whilst others may think it is "objectively true that" it is compatible. I'm not certain, but the former relativistic position seems less common among religious people. If you can find a different way to say "standard" (mainstream? common? run of the mill?), I don't have a problem changing. Mikker (...) 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's their position so I changed 'all the standard' to 'their'.  Having to click on Theistic evolution to find out who 'they' are concerns me.  Should we not just pull the list from that article and put it in here? Pasado 19:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liosts are for shopping trips.  ;) •Jim62sch• 01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can let the main article on theistic evolution explain it fully, but maybe we can reword the sentence slightly to be less ambiguous. --Ignignot 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reworded it as "Many religious people are able to reconcile the science of evolution with their faith or see no real conflict: this position has been called theistic evolution." in the context of a revised paragraph. Hope this suits. ..dave souza, talk 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of theistic evolution

message: With the lucid Dave souza's comments, this article is passing of frankly sectarian to the not sectarian, however it is still non neutral. Berton 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a paragon of neutrality to me. How would you improve it, Berton? - FlyingOrca 13:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this rule should be accomplished literally: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. " Berton 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about a scientific theory. Religious beliefs are detailed in their own articles. Jefffire 13:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Let's deal with that. We need an unbiased source that describes a significant point of view not currently in the article that deals with the subject matter of the article more thann it deals with the subject matter of another article. In other words, NPOV, verifyability, relevance and balance. Creationists simply don't have an alternative scientific theory for the details covered in this article. What scientific experimentation has any creationist done anywhere anytime to better explain the evolution of H5N1? There are billions of dollars being spent to uncover any and all ways of delaying a pandemic until research can find a solution. Where is the Creationist funding proposal? This article is about an area of science. Creationists are not talking about science, even though some pretend they are and others think they are. Perhaps you confuse this article with the Origin belief article. WAS 4.250 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS 4.250, see the example on Britannica Online: Evolution entry - "theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."
NPOV would be if it presented other point of view as creationism, verifiability is not here applicable, or they would not be theories. Relevance, is obvious. And balances it is still more obvious than there is this presentation.
Some sources from Britannica:"Two excellent collections of papers on the evolution-versus-religion dialogue are Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and Francisco J. Ayala (eds.), Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (1998), with contributions from scientists and religious scholars from diverse Christian denominations and including the 1996 statement of John Paul II on the subject; and James B. Miller (ed.), An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution (1998, reissued 2001), an extensive collection that includes in its final part papers by the proponents of the theory of intelligent design. Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (1999, reissued 2002), is a thoughtful but forceful critique of evolutionary materialism as well as of creationism and intelligent design. John A. Moore, From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism (2002), is a very readable discussion of the subject. More advanced discussions are Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (2004); Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (1999); and Massimo Pigliucci, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (2002). The classic presentation of the argument from intelligent design is William Paley, Natural Theology (1802); a modern presentation is Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996, reissued 2003). See others in List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life." Berton 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for a serious answer. Unfortunately this article is not about what you think it is about. Please read that sentence again. In your mind this is true: verifiability is not here applicable, or they would not be theories. This demonstrates what you believe this article to be about. It is not about what you believe it to be about. WAS 4.250 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. Bad example. Christianity is an example of an article where the comment verifiability is not here applicable, or they would not be theories can be understood in a sensible way (even tho verifyability is still applicable in terms of verifying who said what). Evolution is an article about a part of science where "theory" does not refer to "an idea, not a fact" but instead refers to "an assemblage of related facts organized in a way that makes verifyable predictions". WAS 4.250 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. Put it in a message box. FeloniousMonk 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it is a good idea. Just one thing: evolution isn't a theory. Natural selection is. (Boy do I feel like a gramophone). Mikker (...) 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Berton, please read WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:NPOV#Undue weight carefully. Cyde, the message box idea sounds helpful, and could usefully include these links and a reminder that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites such as AiG do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Science and medicine. ...dave souza, talk 08:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Berton

message: This article could use a lot more than it has.  While the info is for the most part factual to the point of bering what everyone remembers learning, more footnotes might be good.  Just a thought. •Jim62sch• 23:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Go for it. Mikker (...) 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: As you may have noticed, I've made some major edits to the article recently, copyediting the top few sections and fiddling with the section layout. I'm now wondering what you think about this potential layout:
* History of evolutionary thought (to give a historical context to the modern understanding of evolution)
* Science of evolution (to clearly define evolution and explain its current study)
* Modern synthesis (to delve into explaining modern evolutionary theory)
* Evidence of evolution (now that the process and theory of evolution have been thoroughly defined and explained, the evidence is provided and explained)
* Misconceptions about modern evolutionary biology (addressing popular (mis)understandings of evolution)
* Social and religious controversies (and a wrap-up on the general social and cultural perspectives on evolution)
The only thing that's troubling me is where "Ancestry of organisms/History of life" fits into the overall layout and flow of this article. It doesn't seem to fit into any larger section; it was previously categorized under "Evidence", but clearly doesn't belong there, as it's providing details regarding the progression of evolution itself throughout the history of the world, not just providing evidence for evolution. Any ideas? -Silence 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I would put them in a different order, but any order that seems resonable (and yours seems reasonable) is ok by me. Second, "Ancestry of organisms/History of life" deserves the same status as the  six you named above. Evolution over billions of years has shaped everything we value. Seven is not too many. WAS 4.250 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would put them in a different order, I'd love to hear it. The order I presented above is just a suggestion. And, if "Ancestry of organisms/History of life" deserves a top-level section, (1) what should that section be called, and (2) between which two sections should it go? That's what I found tricky; if it could fit under "Modern synthesis", that would probably be best organizationally, but obviously we can't do that if that section goes beyond describing modern evolutionary synthesis. -Silence 18:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only know what I like. I like definitions first; then simple stuff and story-like structure (time sequence, cause and effect sequence, you know - linear stuff); then the interdependent complex-interaction technical stuff last. WAS 4.250 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Also, an unrelated question: the dab notice claims that "This article is about the scientific theory of evolution in biology", but isn't this actually the article about the scientific process of biology, just like biological reproduction is about a process, not a theory? The page for the "theory of evolution in biology" is surely modern evolutionary synthesis. Have I misunderstood what this page is about? -Silence 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was recently changed. I changed it back pending resolution here on the talk page. WAS 4.250 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig notice at top of page