Talk:Evolution/Archive 44

message: I have no objection to the archiving of the "theory" thread since most of it was not directly about evolution.  However, the following material is specifically and explicitly about the theory of evolution.  I'd like to know if anyone thinks there is room for this material in this or a linked article:
In his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher addresses the common creationist claim that the theory of evolution is a bad theory because it does not make definite predictions about the results of future observations.  He does so by proposing a different account of “theory” than the simple “set of falsifiable statements” definition.  I think this is a valuable book not because it is a response to critics of evolution, but because Kitcher is a very well-regarded philosopher of science, and this and other books by him have been very well-reviewed by biologists.  
Kitcher agrees with Popper that “there is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail” Philip Kutcher  1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 45 Cambridge: The MIT Press.  But he takes into account Hempel and Quine’s critiques of Popper, the point that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative.  He insists that we view scientific theories as consisting of an “elaborate collection of statements,” some of which are not falsifiable, and others – what he calls “auxiliary hypotheses,” which are.
According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features: (1) unity: “A science should be unified …. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems”  (1982: 47). (2) Fecundity:  “A great scientific theory, like Newton’s, opens up new areas of research. …. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry …. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete.  At any time, it raised more questions than i8t can currently answer.  But incompleteness is now vice.  On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity …. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies” (1982: 47-48).  (3) auxiliary hypothesis that are independently testable: “An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save” (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus’s orbit).
Note that Kitcher’s description of scientific theories avoids a reliance on quantification and prediction.  Like other definitions of theories, including Popper’s, Kitcher  makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) “observational consequences.”  But, like the observation of irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, falsification is only one possible consequence of an observation.  The production of new hypotheses is another possible – and equally important – observational consequence.  Kitcher’s account of a good theory of course is based not only on his understanding of how physical sciences work.  He is also taking into account the way the life sciences work.
According to Kitcher, this is the essence of the theory:
:The main thesis of evolution is that species are not fixed and immutable.  One kind of organism can have descendents that belong to a different kind.  From one original species, a number of different kinds may be generated. Philip Kutcher  1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 7 Cambridge: The MIT Press.  
:The major claim of a Darwinian theory of evolution is that the principal factor of change is natural selection: The most important evolutionary changes come about because some allelic pairs are fitter than others, and these obtain greater representation for their constituent alleles in subsequent generations  Philip Kutcher  1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 20 Cambridge: The MIT Press.  
From Kitcher’s point of view, Darwinian theory is without question an extraordinarily successful theory, and I hope this article can communicate why:
:The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative.  A Darwinian history is a piece of reasoning of the following general form.  The first step consists in a description of an ancestral population of organisms.  The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the population through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent.  Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of biological questions Philip Kutcher  1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 50 Cambridge: The MIT Press.  
:The same kind of story can be told again and again to answer all sorts of questions about all sorts of living things.  Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions … can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories.  Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check Philip Kutcher  1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 52 Cambridge: The MIT Press.  
:Darwin not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of life.  He also gave a structure to our ignorance.  After Darwin, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of Darwinian histories.  The way in which biology should proceed had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that biologists had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers. Philip Kutcher  1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 52-53 Cambridge: The MIT Press.  
My intention is not to keep an unnecessary tangent going - I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of discussion. I haven't read Abusing Science or Living with Darwin by Kitcher, but I will add them to my reading list. I think Slrubenstein's suggestion of Kitcher's work is a good one from what I've read. The Theory article mentions Kitcher so it is addressed by link. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitcher 

message: There is a basic and fundamental concept that is missing regarding evolution which is that evolution is small mutational changes over millions of years.  For example, as Evolutionary Giant Gould hypothesizes in The Tallest Tale. Natural History, 105, 18-27, a giraffe's neck grew at a slow rate over many generations so as to allow for similar mutations in the heart to take place, which would allow the blood to get to the brain.  This is elementary to evolution and should definitely be mentioned in the first paragraph. 
Labaneh (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this covered in the second paragraph of the lead? Tomandlu (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I agree.  Looks covered to me already.  --Plumbago (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any explanation how evolution creates a guy and a girl from gender-lacking bacteria that reproduce through self-replication? I've been wondering about that...--69.234.198.154 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That hasn't been perfectly explained yet, but the article evolution of sex is your best bet. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's one way evolution can happen, and we cover that, we also cover such things as hybridisation, which are much more rapid. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental Issue Missed - Small Mutations over time. 

message: How would people feel about a new article, "Common Misunderstandings about Evolution"? Basically, a place to address all the lies, er, "misunderstandings" put out there by creationists? Tomandlu (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was discussed (and ultimately decided against) at the top of this talk page. Lowell33 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, apols. BTW rejecting an article because it's a "troll magnet" seems an odd criteria (although I understand the sentiment).Tomandlu (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often comical bordering on a droll magnet, but sadly sock puppets, POV pushers, and vandals are a continuous problem despite numerous efforts and strategies. It is just a biology and science article in an encyclopedia (representing the science) and not an insidious plot to corrupt any particular religion or challenge other thoughts. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither of these articles are linked from here are they? Perhaps we should add them. Thanks for reminding us of there existence Fill. I think the Objections to evolution article would be a good place for Slrubenstein's suggestion of Kitcher's posits concerning a theory.GetAgrippa (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, many thanks Filll - I didn't know about list of misconceptions, and have now added an entry to this, and intend to add at least one more. As User:GetAgrippa says, a link to these from this article would be a good idea...Tomandlu (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The top of the article (where other links have been provided) would seem the best place, but I've no idea how those links work :( Tomandlu (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article suggestion - RFC 

message: Regarding, http://longlivescience.com, it does not even have any other sites linking into it, which at least for me generally sets off some warning bells, especially when it's claiming to be a great resource for a scientific topic.   It's articles do seem to be POV, and none that I've seen really contribute anything to the topic of this article.  I don't see any reason to include such an external link. Newtman (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely supports the intelligent design POV strongly, and I see that its Google PageRank is zero, but how can you tell there are no other sites linking into it? That said, I see no reason for having this external link, either. If it's deemed appropriate to include an ID external link, we should at least use a more popular one. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see what links to this page here.  I know such google searches may be deemed inappropriate by some, but they generally give you a damn good picture of the greater reality. Newtman (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a notable organisation or a good source of information. Doesn't belong in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate external link 

message: Proposal is to merge content from Mechanisms and processes of evolution now at User:Sushant gupta/Mechanisms and processes of evolution
For those to whom it is not an obvious merge, some discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, an article consisting of a rag-bag of various "mechanisms and processes" seems a bad idea. A better pattern, surely, would be to have each of those processes briefly outlined in the main Evolution article, and then to be the subject of its own more detailed article. This pattern, indeed, largely exists already. I see no reason, in principle, for an article occupying the middle ground, neither an overall explanation of evolution as a whole nor a detailed exposition of any one of the individual concepts. I'd say merge its content partly up to the main article and partly down to each of the subsidiary articles. In saying this I am making no judgement on the quality of the article Mechanisms and processes of evolution. Snalwibma 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly how it should be done. Thank you, Snalwibma, for making such a rational assessment of the situation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: like we have brief sections for 
* Evolutionary history of life
* Origin of life
* Common descent
* Evolution of life
* History of evolutionary thought
* Social and cultural views
* Applications in technology
we can also have brief sections for outcomes and mechanisms and let the article mechanisms and processes of evolution exist so that the deeper subject matter can be retrieved from their. its a bit bulky to have so much stuff attached to this article and specifically to those 2 sections only. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: but what i have proposed can also help in improving the coverage of evolutionary biology articles coverage. now lets see how. if we design articles in a hierarchial manner, we can surely promote evolutionary bilogy articles for featured topics. it would be benifical for portal:evolutionary biology. right now it seems that all the details have been attached to this article only and other articles like adaptations are getting rotten. we can go in an order and then finally we can obtain a nice set of articles. we can reduce the content from the mechanisms and outcomes section of this article and fix it with sufficient content like other sections such as evoltuion of life. instead of having such long sections on genitic drift, gene flow and adaptations and many more we can club them in short. we can have mechanisms and processes of evolution as the main article for these sections. before creating the article i thought of this. if i would have been in your place i would have also raised the same issue. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I once again disagree. I think we should jump straight to improving articles such as adaptation, genetic recombination etc. otherwise we'll never get the job done, and we won't be serving our readers. They come here wanting to learn something comprehensive about evolution, adaptation, or recombination. I don't think they come here to learn about "mechanisms and processes of evolution" quite as much. Focus on one specific thing, and try to do that well. Works in life, works in business, works for Wikipedia. I'll make it clear one last time: my offer to nominate mechanisms and processes of evolution for deletion still stands, for the reason that it covers the same material as this article, with considerable amounts being an identical copy. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge it or delete it. No need for two articles covering the same ground. Kaldari 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats what i am saying. i will go forward to improve those articles also but in a sequential manner. as per me, there is no need for such ample stuff attached to this (evolution) page. we should rather merge the content to mechanisms and processes of evolution and replace it with a briefer section. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sushant, you are not going to make substantial changes to this article that is already a Featured Article. Your article is the one that has to go. Swallow the pill and get on with it, otherwise I'll make sure it happens. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: I don't particularly care for the opening sentence of this article:
"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by using the word "trait", you're focusing on phenotypic change over time, and doesn't this specifically disqualify neutral evolution?  (It seems to me that it using the definition given, neutral changes like UUU changing to UUC when both code for phenylalanine wouldn't qualify.) Wouldn't it be better to define evolution as "change in allelic frequency over time"? Bueller 007 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, I would have been less anxious to do this, because it might make this article less accessible. However, now that we have the Introduction to evolution article, this might make more sense. Comments?--Filll 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always learned that evolution was a change in allele frequency.  I don't think it's too advanced to just say it.VatoFirme 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer to aim for accessibility and keep the current introduction. Tim Vickers 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too argued "why not just state the definition of a change of gene allele frequencies in a pop. over time", but the majority felt it better for the intro to be simple. Seems we can rehash this forever. I tend to agree with TimVickers, for now, that perhaps other areas are more critical for article development and lets leave this intro. Some of the information in the mechanisms and processes of evolution article would be of use in this article or at least some of the examples. Regards GetAgrippa 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of evolution 

message: Some of you may be interested in taking a look at Ota Benga, an article about a Pygmy man who was displayed among great apes in a zoo in 1906. An editor has been adding and re-adding anti-evolution links as references, Answers in Genesis among them. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ota Benga 

message: It seems a shame that this article for the general public doesn't mention dinosaurs or humans in the "Evolution of Life" section.  I would think that section is the most important one of the article for many readers.  Gnixon (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be WP:BOLD and include the information in the article as you see fit. The beauty of the Wiki. Just remember attribution and WP:RS. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I think conveying things well would involve judgment calls that others around here are better equipped to make.  I would have trouble, for example, deciding which sorts of dinosaurs to mention, or deciding which time to pinpoint in human evolution.  I'm reluctant to ruin what is now a nicely concise overview.  Perhaps one of the local experts would humor me by taking a shot at it in this space?  Gnixon (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just putting in my opinion, but I don't see what makes dinosaurs and humans so important in an evolution article. They are just a few of many products of evolution. Just my opinion. SkepticBanner (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaurs and humans 

message: For those of you continually looking for scientific support for evolution (as a fact), this week's Nature Magazine have joined in the debate. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7175/full/451108b.html)
~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Science and Nature are dedicated to supporting evolution science. The AAAS has been envolved for several years, and there is a host of articles related to the debate. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend this brochure from the National Academy of Sciences (mentioned in Ciar's link) as a standard resource for this talk page.  Gnixon (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science community backing evolution 

message: This change:  should be discussed first.--Filll (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can revert it if you think it is bad.  But why do you think it is bad?  The reasoning for it is spelled out in the edit summary.  Ra2007 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) Yeah, it probably should. In the end, I think we should really go to just what the source says. Unless someone who wished to edit in the "by scientists" line has the book to confirm that it's there, I think it's safest to leave it out (better to be vague than wrong). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted myself, but would be interested in why uncited vaugeness is preferred over uncited (but likely verifiable) specificity?  Ra2007 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the question is, is it verifiable? I have no problems with those words being in there if someone around here has read that source and can attest to it backing up that notion. However, I'm not going to put words into the source's mouth. It could be that the source said it was commonly accepted among everyone - remember that the big problem people had with Darwinian theory was that he applied it to humans as well, and didn't place them aside or put them on the pinnacle of evolution. It's not unreasonable to say that many people of that time accepted that the other species on earth had changed over time. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "by scientists" version is probably verifiable, and wonder about the version without it.  Neither is verified with citation to reliable source, though.  Ra2007 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but the original version (sans "by scientists") was presumably put up by someone with the source at hand. That lends a little weight to that version's likelihood of representing the source accurately. Also, dave souza makes a good point that there actually weren't many "scientists" before that time. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bit hard to guess just what Bowler means. Arguably there were no scientists before 1830 or so [date unconfirmed] when William Whewell coined the term. It seems more likely that he's thinking of the general acceptance by then of Georges Cuvier's Catastrophism, which natural philosophers (including most evangelicals) viewed as explaining the known succession of fossils as a series of Creations. Wide acceptance of transmutation / evolution follows on after the 1860s. . .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I must be missing something. The scientific method predates 1830 and there were definitely scientitists, at least in activity maybe not by name. ???? GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  The complete sentence is "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted by scientists since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear."  Why this is controversial (even if the source does not explicitly say "by scientists" it is obviously implicit.  Besides, I'd like to check, but the whole book is cited without reference to a specific page or chapter.  Maybe the whole sentence should go?  Ra2007 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the thing. It's not obviously implicit to me. I know that many non-scientists (or non-scholars, should I say?) accepted this back then. It seems reasonable to me that the source might have implied that this was widely accepted. Perhaps we should use a different term, such as "scholars" or "academics," though. Or maybe we could change it another way, such as "...has been generally accepted since..."? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To agree with somebody else, we should get the source, summarize it (and also reference the page number).  Ra2007 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason the sentence might be inaccurate is because many (probably most) people in the early 1800s did not accept that species changed over time. I'd wager most people didn't even know it was a possibility. The acceptance was rather among the scientific community. This is an article about a scientific topic, and the sentence is in a subheading relating purely to science, not to cultural beliefs at all, so I don't know that the distinction needs to be made. We don't preface every other sentence in this or other scientific articles with "scientists think" or something like that... it's implied. But if we do make the addition, "scientists" is clearly preferable, because "scholars" or "academics" could also include religious scholars or academics, for example, which would not have necessarily accepted the idea. Sheep81 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While that may or may not be true, the sentence refers to the early 19th century, so... Sheep81 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (Er, think you mean William Jennings Bryan there. Clarence Darrow was the defending attorney.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I made the original insertion of "by scientists," so perhaps I should comment.  The word "accepted" to me seems to allude to a debate, in which context it's appropriate and necessary to qualify with "by scientists" or "by scientists and most everyone who learned about it except some who found it conflicted with their religious beliefs."  I hoped "by scientists" would be a simple, acceptable fix.  I'm sorry I was wrong.  Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a much better fix, which I missed the first time around: swap "known" for "accepted," as in "The fact that species change over time has been known since XXXX."  Presumably this was the originally intended meaning.  I'd go ahead with the change, but, well, you know.... Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, "Scientists theorize that" in the first paragraph seems similarly problematic in that it can be misread to suggest a lack of certainty.  Better to just cut that phrase.  If for some reason it's important to link to "theory", there are better ways to do it.  Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for a couple of catty comments above.  I'm going to BB and make the changes I suggested after reading this discussion.  Cheers, Gnixon (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, isn't the intro getting a little wordy?  I think I remember a much cleaner version from a few months ago.  Anybody want to try taking a hedge trimmer to it?  Gnixon (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I added the "Scientists theorize that..." bit to keep people from adding "theory" to the first sentence over and over. My point was that evolution itself isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon that scientists have observed... the theory in question is that evolution occurs by natural and sexual selection, genetic drift, random chance, etc. I think a link to Theory#Science in the first paragraph is important so that the uninformed can find out what a theory actually is if they come to visit this article, since that seems to be a major misunderstanding among the general public. Thanks for switching that word in the other sentence too, I think that ought to resolve the problem. Sheep81 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your reasoning, but I think the comment at the top that links to Evolution as theory and fact is enough.  Of course, it's not wrong to use the word "theory" in the lead, but I think it causes more problems than it solves.  We're justified in just removing it whenever it crops up (with friendly explanation, of course!).  Gnixon (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, now I see that "theory" crops up naturally in the last paragraph.  I linked to Theory#Science the first time it was used.  Is that okay?  Gnixon (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it was linked there before, I just moved it up to make it more obvious. It's really not a big deal to me. By the way, I agree the lead is a bit wordy now. Sheep81 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Dave.  Obviously "by scientists" was a mistake.  Mea culpa.  Do you think the current sentence/paragraph conveys things correctly?  To me, it reads like we're saying educated folks agreed species evolved, but didn't know why.  That reading is obviously contrary to your reference.  I suppose the current sentence isn't technically wrong, but it seems misleading to me.  Gnixon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been known since the early 19th century" is, as you say, technically correct, but perhaps we can find a concise way of being more explicit. Nothing springs to mind right now, but suggestions welcome. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there a reason "on Earth" is necessary?  How about "While the fact that species change over time..."? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, we still know nothing of life elsewhere. Currently trying out "While the fact that there had been a series of changes of species over time has been known since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear." Still doesn't seem satisfactory. .. dave souza, talk 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this sentence referring to faunal turnover or changes within species? You could say something like "Changes within/between species have been recognized since the early 19th century..." Sheep81 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the late 18th century there was recognition that different eras had different organisms, thus the Silurian, Cambrian (both named after ancient British tribes) Devonian etc had distinctive fossils. A minority explained this as transmutation of one species into another, Lamarck being a leading exponent of this idea, but the majority opinion was that each era represented a separate Creation. A variant of Lamarck's ideas was popularised in 1844 by Vestiges, and Herbert Spencer published ideas of evolution, both in nature and in human society, from 1857, but it was The Origin of 1859 that introduced Darwin's idea. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: More clear, less concise.  Seems really tricky to get this right.  I'm starting to feel like the reader needs more background than can be squeezed into one sentence.  Another option would be to just cut it and start with the next sentence.  Gnixon (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I refuse to edit war but 

message: Regarding "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted (by scientists) since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear.", the fact that there had been changes was accepted by the majority of educated people, including clergymen – science was not a profession until the 1850s, and professors of science subjects would commonly also teach theology, as did those who Darwin learnt from at Cambridge. The establishment also held firmly to the idea that species were fixed and immutable, and rejected "evolution" which had a slightly different meaning at that time. They therefore interpreted the changes as a series of creations and extinctions. Darwin's impact from 1860 onwards was in making the idea of transmutation of species, later called evolution, respectable, so that it became the scientific consensus in the late 19th century. However, evolution had long been popular with many in the lower classes, and following the publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 it gained wide public support, even though it was rejected by the scientific establishment until the 1860s. So, the "by scientists" is unnecessary and misleading. .. dave souza, talk 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dave.  Obviously "by scientists" was a mistake.  Mea culpa.  Do you think the current sentence/paragraph conveys things correctly?  To me, it reads like we're saying educated folks agreed species evolved, but didn't know why.  That reading is obviously contrary to your reference.  I suppose the current sentence isn't technically wrong, but it seems misleading to me.  Gnixon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been known since the early 19th century" is, as you say, technically correct, but perhaps we can find a concise way of being more explicit. Nothing springs to mind right now, but suggestions welcome. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there a reason "on Earth" is necessary?  How about "While the fact that species change over time..."? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, we still know nothing of life elsewhere. Currently trying out "While the fact that there had been a series of changes of species over time has been known since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear." Still doesn't seem satisfactory. .. dave souza, talk 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this sentence referring to faunal turnover or changes within species? You could say something like "Changes within/between species have been recognized since the early 19th century..." Sheep81 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the late 18th century there was recognition that different eras had different organisms, thus the Silurian, Cambrian (both named after ancient British tribes) Devonian etc had distinctive fossils. A minority explained this as transmutation of one species into another, Lamarck being a leading exponent of this idea, but the majority opinion was that each era represented a separate Creation. A variant of Lamarck's ideas was popularised in 1844 by Vestiges, and Herbert Spencer published ideas of evolution, both in nature and in human society, from 1857, but it was The Origin of 1859 that introduced Darwin's idea. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: More clear, less concise.  Seems really tricky to get this right.  I'm starting to feel like the reader needs more background than can be squeezed into one sentence.  Another option would be to just cut it and start with the next sentence.  Gnixon (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "By scientists"

message: May I use Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism as a WP:RS in this article?Ra2007 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Violate WP:POINT much?--Filll (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin suggested that this question needs to be asked on the appropriate page.  Ra2007 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which question? Which admin? Which page? When? Why? --Filll (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have no opinion that you can express, I'd rather not let you derail the section.  Thanks.  Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I guess you are trying to be obtuse. I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A bit more detail would probably help.  What's the question?  Is Ann Coulter a RS on evolution?  Certainly not.  Is she a RS on what evolutionary scientists think?  I would say not.  Is she a RS on what creationists think?  No idea.  Is she a RS on what Ann Coulter thinks?  Probably.  So, what's the context?  bikeable (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ra2007 was just repeating what the admin said, and it sounds like just the advice that any admin would give Ra. I strongly suggest that Ra takes that advice. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she discloses extensive footnotes and is reliable.  She should be as good of a source on what evoutionists think as a Rolling Stone Columnist is on D. James Kennedy, for example.  23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the mythical "evolutionists". Now I see where you're coming from. Why don't you go back to religion and leave the science alone? .. dave souza, talk 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I would love too, but it appears that on Wikipedia, Rolling Stone (magazine) is a RS on evangelists, and so I thought a political pundit would be a reliable source here on a scientific article (especially since she has sooo many footnotes, just like TalkOrigins.)  And the NCSE has been deemed a reliable source on D. James Kennedy too.  Strange, I know, but true.  Ra2007 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now Filll, I think Ra2007 is making a WP:POINT. Which looks very much like disruptive editing to me. Perhaps Ra2007 should take some time off to study Wikipedia policies? ... dave souza, talk 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, while it may appear that way to you Dave, the Coulter book is really quite good, and deserves to be used as a source on this article and on the article Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, and other articles.  Ra2007 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's how is appears to the rest of the community that makes the difference in the end. Being so, I encourage you to carry on so we can get this over with. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What is your problem with rolling stone, don't they have real journalists? Coulter is all about propaganda. And if what you're doing here is not WP:POINT, then nothing is.  David D. (Talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You've been getting bad advice. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Footnotes, eh? See Richard Feynmann's classic essay on "cargo cult science." Coulter can have all the footnotes and references she wants, but the planes ain't gonna land. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, you should sit down and read through these "footnotes" that Coulter claims to use.  I've seen more honesty at a 3 card monte game.  At midnight.  In a rough spot in NYC.  Baegis (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, be fair, didn't Dembski (The Great Newt of the Infromashun Age) write it for her?  . . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's reprinted in various places on the web, but linking to copyvios is naughty. Googling "feynmann cargo cult science" will get you there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I will tell you when Coulter can be a good reference for this article. People like Ra2007 want everything to be fair and equal, including forcing those who are not of his faith to pay to force public school teachers to proselytize children from families who are not of his faith to subscribe to the discredited beliefs of his faith in publicly funded secular science classes, or else be fired or jailed. So everything can be fair and equal when I can force all the religious leaders to regularly stand in front of their congregants and tell them that all the tenants of their faith are horse manure and lies, and force their congregants to hear that message and to pay for it. At that point, things will be getting closer to fair, and I will argue that Coulter might be a suitable reference for this article. Until the time that I can ensure that all religious beliefs are discredited as ridiculous nonsense meant to fleece teh gullible regularly in the churches, mosques, temples and synagogues, it is really not something I can support. Thanks...--Filll (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not discuss godless liberalism, so I am at a loss as to what the POINT might be. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the book did have a chapter (or two, haven't read it) "on" "evolution." But the reason this is POINTy is that Ra2007 disagreed with the use of Rolling Stone as a source for some claim in the D. James Kennedy article. He tried to use this case as a metaphor on that talk page, but people weren't seeing/didn't agree with the parallel. So then he comes here asking if his metaphorical comparison (which his own logic leads him to believe isn't valid) should be enacted here. His goal is to make a point here that Ann Coulter isn't a good source on evolution then use that to argue his other case (or possibly he's trying to use the other case to push in her as a source here in a riposte). It won't work in any case, as people over there didn't agree that a parallel existed at all, so the outcome here is irrelevant. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  This has been discussed extensively over at the Kennedy article. Rolling Stone is a major magazine with a history of investigative journalism and editorial oversight and fact checking. This is in contrast to a book written by a pundit talking about a topic the pundit has no training, degrees or education in. Enough POINT. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's face it: this article will never be fair and and balanced until it includes an account of how Tzacol, the Builder and his consort Bitol the former; Gucumatz the feathered serpent and his consort Tepeu the conqueror; Xpiyacoc and his consort Xmucané (these last two are the grandparents of Hunajpu and Ishbalankej, the hero twins of the Popul Vuh story); Alom the father god and his consort, Qaholom, the mother; u Qux cho, the spirit of the lake., created the first human beings.  You secularist evolutionists always want to keep religion out of things but the thunder gods will drink your blood and you will be sorry unless you acknowledge them! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've been invited to suggest this 

message: The next sentence in the paragraph is "This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits reproduce more successfully, passing on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation." The "passing on more copies of heritable traits" seems a bit confusing to me, would it be clearer to say ".. reproduce more successfully, so that more in the next generation have these heritable traits." or alternatively ".. reproduce more successfully, so that more in the next generation inherit these traits." ........ dave souza, talk 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either one is fine with me. Sheep81 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "...so that these heritable traits are more common in the next generation." Sheep81 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer "inherit these traits" as it's simple and explicit. Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Sheep81 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next generation