Talk:Evolution/Archive 43

message: Hi,
The phrase "Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce." in the end of the second paragraph should be altered, as this is not a suitable definition of genetic drift. Suggestion:
"Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in altering allelic frequencies among generations."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.39.216 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro was fashioned to be basic. All of your specific concerns are addressed in the Genetic Drift section of the article. Regards GetAgrippa 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining genetic drift 

message: The difference between Science and Scientism is accepting a theory as fact when supporting evidence continues to NOT support the theory.
Evolution is too often presented as fact when in reality it is just an old theory loosely based on bits and peaces of facts that do not fit together (Wells, 2002). A growing number of biologists, Like Jonathan Wells, believe and teach evolution is an old highly unsupported theory (Wells, 2002). Evolution is far from being well accepted (Wells, 2002). Wells (2002) wrote a book explaining how all of the Icons of the evolution theory hold very little empirical, logical, or factual evidence. Wikipedia should do its self a favor and at least mention evolution is a controversial theory, if not present REAL SCIENTIFIC contradiction to the theory.
Reference: Well, J. (2002) Icons of evolution: Science or myth? Washington DC: Regnery Publishing.
If believers and teachers of evolution continue to ignore prophesiers like Jonathan Wells and contradicting evidence they are jeopardizing the name of science and selling it out to scientism; for what I DO NOT KNOW, but some suspect it is because of there hatred for the U. S. historical culture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.10.170 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put down that pseudo-science book by Well, and read Evolution as a theory and fact and then come back. I don't think the vast majority of people in the world who agree with Evolution do so because they have a hatred for the American Indian tribes - you're going to have to explain that for us a bit better - or is this just about the European immigrants ?. Ttiotsw 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a page on Icons of Evolution.  The book is, frankly, garbage.  But it has not been "ignored": it has been quite thoroughly investigated and debunked. --Robert Stevens 09:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would presume the Intelligent Design article has a wealth of info related to Well. Intelligent Design is not science (courts say so)and so it cannot be entertained in this science article-it is no bias just intellectual honesty for an encyclopedia article. The debate of creationism, intelligent design vs evolution is discussed in the article so the issue is addressed. That sums it up! Oh to question Evolution theory questions all Biology and a number of other scientific fields. It is a cornerstone of Biology driving research in medicine, agriculture, genetics, etc. GetAgrippa 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons of Evolution 

message: Discussion moved to Talk:Level of support for evolution. Tim Vickers 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution in medicine 

message: I searched 'evolution' and someone's put in Biblical material instead (aka Genesis). I looked at the 'edit' page and it looked like the actual material was there, but someone pulled a fast one and I don't know how to fix it. If someone could thank you! : ) 134.84.57.79 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been fixed. If it still looks like that to you, press ctrl-f5 to refresh skipping cache, and it should show up fine. Also, see WP:RV for how to revert things. Finally, thanks for warning us. Gscshoyru 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone messed with this article 

message: I've recently listened to the Singularity Summits (online) in which the transition to smarter than human technology was discussed (and have also been reading, etc.). There is a concensus among AI scientists that most advanced and promising area of EA is genetic programming. A great first source in this area is "Genetic Programming, An Introduction," by Banzhaf, Nordin, Keller, and Franconé. But there is also already an entry on genetic programming in Wikipedia. GP was started by John Koza, who also has a Wikipedia entry. Development of "a complete cognitive system for robotics" based on GP and the work of Peter Nordin has been announced by irobis . A little additional background on the basic thought: William James, the father of American psychology, argued in 1874, just 15 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species that mental processes could operate in a Darwinian manner. Evidence in cognitive research shows such competing patterns of thought and consciousness, where we consciously perceive only the tip of the iceberg. A very good overview of these thoughts is provided by Nobel laureate Gerald M. Edelman in his seminal book Neural Darwinism from 1987. It seems the most compelling, simple explanation, is that evolution of thoughts is fundamental to our adaptive nature and is an advanced survival mechanism: allowing destructive thoughts to die instead of the species. Rogerfgay 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be practical to put this in an article about biological evolution, though? It sounds as though the 'evolution of thoughts' is more an application of selective pressures that don't really relate to biological propagation but rather psychology. 'course, this is just my impression; correct me if I am misguided. -EarthRise33 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any published scientific literature on the topic? Tim Vickers 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask a pertinent question?  What has this got to do with Evolution, even if it's somewhat interesting.  Evolution of thoughts is definitely psychiatry or psychology or sociology, or one of the "soft" sciences.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with OrangeMarlin and Earthrise. It doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedic article on biological evolution, and I would think it belongs with a neuroethology or psychology related article. It is a good question, but it is like a "Why sex?" kind of issue where there are lots of published thoughts. GetAgrippa 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses in technology 

message: Please archive this page because a lot of the discussions above are troll magnets.--Filll 12:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to do my trolling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, both yield fishy results, but I can distinquish a mackerel from a herring. GetAgrippa 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I thought you were just mad north-north-west, is that when the wind is southerly? Tim Vickers 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually get seasick trolling for Lake Trout.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion. Two major uses of the word evolution include: 
Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. 
The General theory of evolution: the speculation that all life originated naturalistically without any act of creation (abiogenesis). All life on the planet is related because it originated in a single cell or population of cells (common ancestry). All the biological complexity, adaptivity, and artistry on the planet is solely the result of random changes and natural selection over millions and billions of years. 
It seems that the word 'evolution' is not used in a precise manner in these articles Partgreen 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the various meanings of "evolution" are covered at Evolution (disambiguation), for a start... For the nuances of evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory, I recommend Evolution as theory and fact. You might also find Introduction to evolution helpful. Snalwibma 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Snalwibma. You are also confused with some of the semantics. Biological evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution doesn't always take millions or billions of years as speciation can be seen in real time in some organisms. "It seems that the word 'evolution' is not used in a precise manner in these articles"-is that a point of view or do you have any references to substantiate that opinion. Seek and ye shall find-read the suggested material and come back with arguments. Thanks for the suggestions. GetAgrippa 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piling on.  First of all, abiogenesis is NOT a part of Evolution.  That's a misunderstanding.  Evolution in the sense of this article covers all of the other points.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Evolution and common ancestry are facts, the theory of evolution describes the mechanism that produces these effects. Like gravity is a fact and the theory of General relativity describes the mechanism that produces this effect. The article discussing modern evolutionary theory is Modern evolutionary synthesis, I think this covers the material you are describing under the title of "General theory of evolution". Tim Vickers 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Partgreen, just because you invent distinctions, certainly does not mean they actually exist in the intellectual and scientific world.  Please, read what TimVickers has suggested.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Geez, these dirty socks are left everywhere.  Someone needs to get them tossed out in the garbage.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partgreen you are either dishonest or confused saying a non sequitur like creationists believe in evolution. That is not even logical. You keep mentioning a change in genetics without mentioning a change in traits. Darwin's theory is historical and not much remains other than natural selection and his belief that evolution acted at the level of the organism. You are correct that evolution is not a simple theory but nested hypotheses,models, etc., but there is no deception in the article. Apparently you have a strong POV, so do I and neither of our opinions are needed in an encyclopedia. If you can't provide any resources or real criticisms then you are wasting everyone's time. This is a science article about biological evolution, and it is similar to countless text books and encyclopedias-they just don't offer you the soapbox venue to express your opinions. The subject has nothing to do with religions or beliefs. As an aside Partgreen, it becomes apparent that you are guilty of sockpuppetry, uncivility, and abusing Wikipedia rules. Is that ethical? GetAgrippa 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can some of these concepts be included in this article? 

message: "Theory of Evolution" currently redirects to the page on Evolution.  I think it would be more appropriately redirected to the article on Modern evolutionary synthesis, which is where "Evolutionary Theory" redirects to. Pyromania152 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. It seems that in everyday language, "theory of evolution" really refers to evolution itself, while "evolutionary theory" refers to current academic thinking about the workings of evolution. So, having different redirects for each term seems appropriate.--Thomas Arelatensis 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had evolutionary theory redirect to modern evolutionary synthesis and can see where you are coming from. Most people looking for the Theory of Evolution, however, will not be sure of the difference. I suggest that it stay as it is.--THobern 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theory of Evolution" Redirect 

message: Biological evolution as a series of objectively observable physical events including mutation, reproduction, and death is an obvious and necessary component of understanding biological evolution. The discovery of DNA and the development of computational abilities has allowed studies in iterated complex processes and thus the application of information science to see biological evolution from a deeper level; to see biological evolution as the biological evolution of information systems within physically and chemically evolving nonliving information systems. Yet this still is mere data self-organizing. Biosemiotics takes this one step further by trying to apply the study of meaning as defined by Semiotics. Semiotics is a logic based study of "sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems". For example, a molecule of sugar is an object that can be interpreted by a bacteria as a sign of the presence of food. This event can be understood and evaluated in terms of meaning rather than merely as a physical, chemical, or biological event. See http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/casys99.html for more. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution and meaning 

message: My last suggestion for an article on 'evolution and perfection' was vetoed, but I'd like to toss another idea out there. There are no doubt many misconceptions about what evolution is and how it works. An article addressing these issues, such as misconceptions about evolution, or perhaps common misconceptions about evolution might be a future possibility. Some that come to mind are that evolution must involve increasing complexity, or that organisms propagate themselves for 'the good of the species'. There are articles out their about common mistakes and misconceptions students have about evolution as well which could be used as a source. Richard001 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, Evolution of complexity has already been created. Tim Vickers 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And an article on orthogenesis already exists as well.--Filll 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are a range of articles that address the specific issues concerned (e.g. unit of selection), but would it be better to have an article addressing all such issues? You haven't stated your position; do you feel the same way as you did with my last proposal, i.e. that the matter is already sufficiently covered by other articles? Richard001 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a list, based on List of common misconceptions? Tim Vickers 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If such an article is to be created, it could use a lot of material from the Evolution FAQ and the Objections to evolution pages.--Thomas Arelatensis 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, maybe we should redirect these pages to one of the two above (objections or the relevant section at list of misconceptions). What do you think? By the way, there's no history of misconceptions about evolution being deleted. Are you sure you have the right name? Richard001 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see. After looking at the deletion discussion I think they didn't redirect because there was no article really suitable. It's an article worthy topic, no doubt, but there are already so many overlapping articles that it just becomes redundant to throw in another one. Thanks for your replies. Richard001 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions about evolution 

message: This page is getting a bit long. --Filll (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the talk page, fixed a few errors with the archives (for some reason 42 & 43 weren't showing up even though they were full), and most importantly, I moved the section on the criticism of Evolution to Thomasdid's talk page so it can be continued.  Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive? 

message: I'm sorry I'm not sure how to go about sifting through older talk pages just yet, but I remember a while back a discussion about whether or not to define evolution in the opening paragraph as specifically the changes in allele frequencies over time.  Someone had pointed out that saying "inherited traits" isn't entirely accurate, since it sounds like it refers to the organism's morphology instead of its genes.
Was just wondering what happened in that discussion and why it wasn't changed.  I know some people thought just saying "inherited traits" is simpler, but then I've always been taught "allele frequencies", and anyway there's an intro to evolution article for those who have trouble understanding.
Sorry if this was already discussed at length.  Feel free to just point me to the older discussion if this was already resolved.  Thanks.VatoFirme (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly this section ?  Evolution is not Natural Selection David D. (Talk) 08:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: I know many of you here have monitored the Introduction to Evolution Article. Perhaps your constructive criticism would be of help as we pursue FA status. I feel that it would lend credibility to the controversial topic to have the star and it would be appropriate; since we are the first link featured at the top of this article. So far two concerns have been raised over format of citations --- which we will fix. However this comment "The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate." deals with the general nature of the article; thus is of greater concern  to me.  Sorry --- don't have the link to the commentary page; but you can bounce off of Introduction to Evolution. Thanks for your helpful input in advance :) --Random Replicator (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird, sounds like paint the kettle black. Why should a science article on evolution be side tracked with possible undue weight about a social issue. I can appreciate the gravity and concern but the article needs to focus on the science I would think. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me try this again. We have submitted the Introduction to Evolution entry for featured article status. It has been extensively edited by very talented people. At present - we are receiving rather knee-jerk commentaries of little or no value when it comes to improving the article. Again .... I would like to invite you to comment on the condition of the article  and provided informed suggestions for improvement. I am seeking input from the names I am familiar with from this discussion page that are experienced on this topic. This is not a plea for support; but, for input --- for better or worse. It was based on discussions on this page that the Introduction to Evolution Article was created. The lack of interest from those whose opinion we value is very disappointing. I am not soliciting supporting votes - I merely asking for your input (support or oppose) and if it falls short then please tell us what we need to do to improve it or better yet ---- jump in and fix it!. Please join in the commentary. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Status Introduction to Evolution 

message: There is a new journal called Evolution: Education and Outreach available free online. Article about it; 1st issueDoes anybody support inserting it into the external links?--Svetovid (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a teacher, I was delighted to see such a resource. If you would care to add it to the external links on Introduction to EvolutionI am sure it will be well received there.  --Random Replicator (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link 

message: The article should mention Sociobiology. It's as important and controversial as punctuated equilibrium. The treatment of sociobiology should ensure that it is not confused with Social Darwinism. Philcha (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should mention sociobiology 

message: Introduction to evolution begins, "Evolution is the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms that results in the emergence of new species." I think this is a much better first sentence than Evolution currently has: it summarises Darwin's original reasoning; it focusses on the core issue, speciation; it would work even if all our current understanding of genetics were blown away by some new discovery; and of course it requires less prior knowledge on the part of the reader.
"evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next" is slightly inaccurate; from a genetics point of view it would be more accurate to say e.g. "evolution is a change in the percentage mix of inherited traits in a population from one generation to the next" ( or "... in the frequency distribution of inherited traits ...", but I prefer the simpler expression in an initial sentence) since a population itself does not have traits. I suggest this slight inaccuracy is a symptom of trying to pack too much theory into the first sentence. Philcha (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of intro 

message: No section on the problems with evolution?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.232.154 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current areas of research and points of debate, such as the importance of species level, rather than gene level selection, or the importance of genetic drift in speciation, are discussed throughout the article. This material fits best next to the section outlineing the concept involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it would be valuable to have a section that explores the debate between Gould (and others) and Dawkins (and others) on species vs. genes as objects of selection, as well perhaps on debates on the inpact of recent advances on evodevo on evolutionary theory (or, speculations).  Editors have done a fantastic job of laying out clearly and elegantly what life scientists agree on and perhaps some editors feel more comfortable sticking to what we know for sure.  But I think these debates are interesting and also it furthers our educational goals to explain to people what kinds of things scientists working within the same paradigm do in fact question and debate, and how such debates take shape.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Such debates are noted in the text, but not personalised or attributed. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.... this is what I thought you were saying in your 12:50 comment, which is precisely why I feel we need a separate section. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Such debates ... not personalised or attributed". I think not naming Gould, Dawkins and other participants in recent / current debates about the theory of evolution is an inconsistency, since all sorts of other scientists and pre-scientists are named. It also misses an opportunity to help readers, since some of them will know the name of e.g. Gould and / or Dawkins from other reading, and giving the names will help such readers to get oriented. Philcha (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: PS The "Co-operation" section should mention the name of Robert Trivers, the problem of altruism in species whose genetics do not mandate eusocial behaviour and the concept of Evolutionarily stable strategy. Philcha (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally Nowak was directly mentioned concerning cooperation. Trivers is an interesting individual. I think he only published seven papers and two or three books his career. I also think he never completed a degree-as I recollect?? Names have come and gone in this article. Concerning the debates issue. Why not start a stub and start adding topics: Ernst vs Kimura, Gould vs Dawkins, Mutationism vs natural selection, Level of selection, etc. and then we can start filling in various issues and debates. This may be more appropriate for the Modern Synthesis article. Oops! Forgot to sign in. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This would be fine with me too, especially if this article is getting too long (otherwise I think it is generally good practice to start new threads in the main article and spin them off to daughter articles when they reach a certain length - but either way is fine by me)Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with "good practice to start new threads in the main article and spin them off to daughter articles when they reach a certain length." One can get into paralysis by analysis if one worries too much about structure up front. I know some good editors who find this approach works well. Philcha (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate