Talk:Evolution/Archive 33

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "An undercover creationist POV fork"?????  Huh?  Why is the AfD even around?  I'm confused.  Orangemarlin 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curses, we've been foiled again apparently! Homestarmy 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sssssh.  I might be able to convince them I'm not really part of the Undercover Creationist Alliance.  I had them fooled.  But if they think I actually like you, they might be suspicious.  So I might have to violate WP:CIVIL and be mean to you.  Those Evolution supporters might buy into it.  Orangemarlin 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New AfD

message: I've heavily reorganized the top of Talk:Evolution in the interest of brevity, aesthetics, and accessibility, and rewritten Talk:Evolution/FAQ in the interest of providing a better resource for preventing the rehashing of the same old arguments here again and again. How do they look? -Silence 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did a nice job. I wonder if changing some colors a bit might be good, if it is not too garish, in the text at the top. I also wonder if a more pithy list in the FAQ like what we had before might be a useful addition, since WP rules do not really apply.--Filll 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What text do you think should be colored? And, I don't think the list needs to be any more shortened, because doing so will only lead to ambiguities that will often make discussions all the more tangled. Because I imagine we will only ask someone posting here to read one of the sections (whichever one his comment is a reiteration of), there is actually very, very little to read through to get to the important stuff—less than for most of the former version, since you had to get through the irrelevant lines of text to find the right number. Section-linking negates that inconvenience. However, feel free to make whatever edits to the FAQ you think would improve it. -Silence 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised FAQ and top of talk page

message: Why is Talk:Evolution/Archive 3 a carbon copy of the second half of Talk:Evolution/Archive 1? There seem to be a lot of very strange redundancies and chronological inconsistencies in the archives for this page. -Silence 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplication in the archives is perhaps not a serious problem. If you can easily correct it, please do so. I know that at least one of the editors who worked on the archiving preferred to do it topic-by-topic, as issues became inactive.  If this is done, the order of dates in the archive may not appear straightforward. EdJohnston 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that Archives 3-7 were all redundant to other Archives. They should probably be deleted to avoid future confusion. Some reorganization and page-moving may even be due. -Silence 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The archiving was probably not done in a completely organized fashion. Some intentional duplication was done to allow people to look at previous discussions easily however.--Filll 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk archives question

message: In the introduction
"... resulting in very high levels of optimisation over time." The intro paragraph seems to be evolving nicely; but this word for some reason jumped out at me as being slightly over the top. From a teacher's perspective, I foresee some glazed over looks when I ask them what that line means. 
In math: refers to the study of problems in which one seeks to minimize or maximize a real function by systematically choosing the values of real or integer variables from within an allowed set. This problem can be represented in the following way
Given: a function f : A  R from some set A to the real numbers 
Sought: an element x0 in A such that f(x0) ≤ f(x) for all x in A ("minimization") or such that f(x0) ≥ f(x) for all x in A ("maximization"). 
Guessing that is not the definition you are shooting for since your spelling has an 's' and not a 'z'? --Random Replicator 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -ise versus -ize is just  British vs. American usage. Adam Cuerden talk 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  optimisation  

message: I suggest that there be a short section in the article regarding computer simulation of evolution.  (This should be done by someone more familiar & capable than I am.)  There are 2 good reasons for this: 1) It addresses predictive value of the theory.  (The fact that engineers make money with analytic techniques based on the theory speaks volumes about validity.)  2) It's historically significant that the theory led to genetic algorithms useful in designing antennas, circuitry, AI, & more.68.40.204.107 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  engineering applications of evolution 

message: The following page, on a wiki that I founded, has what I think is a clear outline of the chain of reasoning behind the theory of evolution by natural selection: http://www.chainsofreason.org/wiki/Chain_1 - Hensa 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seems to be objecting, so I've now added the link. Hensa 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested link 

message: I'd like to take some space here to congratulate editors whose comments appear on this talk page for what seems to have been a very constructive and productive discussion in recent weeks.  I'm particularly excited that the article has been trimmed down a bit and that defenses of evolution against creationists no longer seem to dominate the article.  
In the past, this talk page has often been a space for lots of unproductive bickering over pet sub-topics and venting of frustration with creationists.  I, for one, became so frustrated that I stopped trying to contribute, and I became disillusioned with Wikipedia in general.
Now, however, editors here seem to be working together, focusing on *improving* the article, and getting stuff done!  I'm particularly impressed by the patient, persistent, and detailed efforts of Silence, who has made good contributions to several other science articles I'm aware of.
Kudos to all, and keep up the good work!
(Two thoughts:  I still think the article could use much trimming, and I think the "Misunderstandings" section is out of place here and could be cut entirely.)
Best, Gnixon 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos! 

message: Moved to Evolution Debates archive.  Gnixon 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question: Scientific objections from the Veritas Forum (Christian Faculty Organization) 

message: I'm pretty sure that having this page at Evolution (biology) is in disagreement with the guidelines as to disambiguation, as it's overwhelmingly what is meant. Indeed, we've had this discussion not that long ago. Ah, well.  Adam Cuerden talk 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the overwhelmingly most common usage.  Anyway, you shouldn't move a major page like this without prior discussion.  Guettarda 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) It's not entirely clear-cut, but WP:DISAMBIG goes into this topic to a degree.  Having read the list of "alternative" evolutions, it's clear to me that biological evolution is the primary topic.  But I say that as a biologist.  Anyway, I think one would have their work cut out explaining why any of the other evolutions (even the science ones) deserves to be the primary.  Have a go here if you want though, but I imagine it'd be a lost cause.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason is that none of the other types of evolution would be understood out of context as being referred to, but biological evolution is.  This makes it the main definition.  Adam Cuerden talk 13:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Evolution has nothing to do with "how life began" - that would be Abiogenesis or Origin of life.  "Theory of Evolution" (which is all about how life subsequently developed, via mutation and natural selection etc) should go here. --Robert Stevens 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is here, under ancestry of life. It might be able to be done better. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move 

message: Since the article has been demoted from its FA status, we need to think about what can be done specifically to bring it back up to standard.  In addition, is there any reason the article couldn't make it as a GA in the interim? (I realise that GA standards keep changing, and I mean that as a real, non-rhetorical question).  
Silence raised a lot of points at the FARC discussion.  Mark raised an important point - the issue of non-technical language (since he's the FA director, his opinion has a lot of weight).  So any thoughts on how to move this back to FA?  Guettarda 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. There IS a lot of good stuff in  Introduction to evolution that's much more poorly explained here. I'd keep Evolution's introduction, but compare the excellent sections on Population genetics and speciation in Introduction to evolution to this article's ham-handed explanations, and I think you'll agree that a bit of cannibalism is in order, adapting it, of course, to add the few bits of extra information in the main article.  Adam Cuerden talk 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA/FA? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#
====Survey - in opposition to the move====
# Oppose - perfectly fine as is. This is the major use of the word by far. Vsmith 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Oppose - perfectly fine as is. This is the major use of the word by far. Vsmith 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Discussion moved to Evolution Debates archive.  Gnixon 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment moved from inappropriate location

message: ...Alright, I'll admit I can just about understand that, but I can't for the life of me see why on earth it's in the section on metabolism. I've reverted it, unless there's a reason for it? Adam Cuerden talk 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Also, observations indicate that corpuscular mitosis occurs in fibular organisms, including mammal species 

message: Why is Evolution categorized as :Category:Theories.  It's lumped in with a bunch of weird stuff.  Did this just pass underneath the radar, or is it supposed to be there?  Orangemarlin 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these the current categories? (I'm afraid I may have just added one: I had to throw a  tag onto a reference in the Social and Religious controversies bit, which puts it into accuracy disputes. I'll see if I can find that verify source one. Adam Cuerden talk 10:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I've created a special archive called "Evolution Debates" and added a first topic.  The idea is to give us somewhere to put the long, recurring debates over the validity of evolution, it's status as theory vs. fact, etc., that tend to clutter this page.  I would propose that editors regularly move such discussions to the archive when they appear, leaving the discussion heading on this page with a note explaining the move. (See "Quick Question..." above.) Gnixon 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a mistake to me. It suggests that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for debating evolution; it is not. This new page encourages, rather than discourages, time-wasting and redundant debates. Moreover, I see that many of the "debates" on this page are more counterproductive than anything, serving as a breeding ground for inflammatory comments and squabbling. We should discourage even responding to debate-provoking arguments that aren't directly relevant to the article; instead, simply provide a link to the appropriate FAQ section when someone raises an objection that's addressed there, and remove any further comments (either pro- or anti-evolution) to the user's personal Talk page. Most of the things brought up on the Debate page are already addressed at the FAQ, so re-hashing them out when nothing new is being proposed is the opposite of productive. -Silence 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such debates should be removed from this talk page. In my view, our archive list doesn't need an entry for 'Evolution Debates'. Wikipedia policy, such as WP:REFACTOR, already allows for removal of non-relevant contributions to an article Talk page.  EdJohnston 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree those debates don't need to be here at all, but sometimes the line is fuzzy, and I thought it might be less offensive to other editors if their discussions were moved rather than deleted entirely.  Consider the Dmurtegex... (sp?) discussion below.  Are there some legitimate, article-related issues being discussed, or is it entirely a rehashing of old debates?  Gnixon 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution Debates Archive