Talk:Evolution/Archive 27

message: I'm now on the variation section 1st para. I quite like the way this has been written. Some nice editing and thought has gone on here to get a pithy explanation. The changes I am porosoing and need some input on are:
1. Removing the word "new" in "new mutation". I dislike it because mutation implies a change therefore by implication it's new (to that genome). Also, it implies that a mutational change is one that has not occurred before (in any organism or population) which is most unlikely.
2. removing "at that site". The alleles will be at the same locus by definition (unless I've missed something!). 
If both were removed this would reduce the paragraph by 4 words and I could then sleep well tonight 8)
Candy 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with that, but would like to see a quick explanation of mutations before removing new: since it's not been described much at that point, we can't presume things are too obvious. It needn't be in that section, of course. Adam Cuerden talk 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I suspect that the best thing we can do is simply set out a rule: Every term has to be explained at first occurence. It's probably the only way not to lose FA. Adam Cuerden talk 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation 

message: Can we get away with not defining the word Gene? Adam Cuerden talk 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gene]]s

message: thumb|left|Charles Darwin at age 51, just after publishing The Origin of Species.
Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans. However it was not until the publication of scientific papers by Darwin and Wallace that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of 
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first explanation to the general public.
However, Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance which was later revealed by [Gregor Mendel]]. Mendel revealed that certain traits in peas occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were inherited in a well-defined and predictable manner.<ref name="mendelianrevolution">
Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA.
:::I saw a lot of what was written as insignificant to the topic. The reader is directed to a more detailed article. As I am pushed for time I am not adding a few bits of the puzzle that are missing (particularly post Crick and Watson) but this is my suggestion for brevity. It needs some refining but there ya have it ... bare bones Candy 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Suggest one more sentence, along the lines of "Evolution theory has continued to develop and be revised as new information is found." Also shrink the Darwin pic a bit. Just a first thought, must cook my tea now, .dave souza, talk 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that because Darwin has a big head? 8) Candy 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Always inclined to tweak and expand, here's a rather more wikified option. I've flipped the Chas. Darwin photie and modified the caption to show how long he'd been working on it, with a link to the reaction article. The Modern evolutionary synthesis wasn't linked, so I've worked that into the second para. Thoughts? ... dave souza, talk 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. seems a much better caption. Why is the image reversed. Isn't that a bit naughty? Anyway changing the main page. Candy 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reversing point came up at Talk:Charles Darwin#Picture where LiquidGhoul was positive it's ok with Public domain images – that article says "A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." and having had a look through image policy etc I've not found any restrictions. p.s. don't you like my revised text? There are quite a few wee changes: Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans." becomes "Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans.", the scientific papers and Wallace are linked accordingly, and "However, Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance which was later revealed by Gregor Mendel." becomes "However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when Gregor Mendel's work was integrated into the modern evolutionary synthesis." (Also I tried rewording the caption but am less convinced by that) Well, I thought it was pretty cunning.. sob.. dave souza, talk 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move article, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought 

message: Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans. However it was not until the publication of scientific papers by Darwin and Wallace that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of 
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first explanation to the general public.
However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when Gregor Mendel's work was integrated into the modern evolutionary synthesis. Mendel revealed that certain traits in peas occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were inherited in a well-defined and predictable manner.
Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA. 
Evolutionary theory continues to develop and be modified in light of new scientific discoveries.
::OK. seems a much better caption. Why is the image reversed. Isn't that a bit naughty? Anyway changing the main page. Candy 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reversing point came up at Talk:Charles Darwin#Picture where LiquidGhoul was positive it's ok with Public domain images – that article says "A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." and having had a look through image policy etc I've not found any restrictions. p.s. don't you like my revised text? There are quite a few wee changes: Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans." becomes "Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans.", the scientific papers and Wallace are linked accordingly, and "However, Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance which was later revealed by Gregor Mendel." becomes "However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when Gregor Mendel's work was integrated into the modern evolutionary synthesis." (Also I tried rewording the caption but am less convinced by that) Well, I thought it was pretty cunning.. sob.. dave souza, talk 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move article, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of evolutionary thought up to the modern synthesis 

message: Could somebody explain why (see diff  and ), verifiable, citable material was removed, and the rest of the uncited material in the section was kept?  Even the bot recognized this as vandelism.
:For example, Ronald Reagan quipped during the 1980 presidential campaign, "Well, [evolution] is a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed."<< 
5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot
::I don't think what Reagan said is particularly notable anyway; beyond being senile at the time, honestly, he's just not that big a figure in the field. Maybe its worth noting, maybe not. Titanium Dragon 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to introduce an abbreviated Reagan quote in the rewritten main Evolution as a theory and fact article. We just don't have the room for it here, however.--Filll 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My mistake. It is on my rough draft of my rewrite of that article. So do not get too upset. Just give it a rest. --Filll 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing about Ronald Reagan's observation at Evolution as theory and fact.  Strange that new users who have not previously contributed to this article are allowed to come in and vandelize. 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to be the perfect quote in a section that is attempting to debunk  misunderstandings of "nonscientists", then. 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: User N6 is a sockpuppet suspect.  Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/N6 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh give me a break.  Do you note anything on our pages?  But I am adding you to the VacuousPoet list of suspects.Orangemarlin 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions between theory and fact 

message: I have restored the lead to a version of a week ago, since in that week, it's been reverted to one from October, and, as stated on the FA review now ongoing, that version was a violation of WP:LEAD, and was sufficient reason to lose FA. I've also added in a quick gloss of mutation, per discussion on "Variation" above. Adam Cuerden talk 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-restored to a version from 3-days ago, having found the exact point where it was reverted to approximately October: . I'm going to try and find the version reverted to, and point up this sneaky revert. Adam Cuerden talk 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a little excessive. Rather, I should say "please label reverts back to a (modified?) previous version as such, when possible. Adam Cuerden talk 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Since misunderstandings and controversy are not directly relevant to the study of evolution but are more iterative, I have content forked them to a new article. Please help improve misunderstandings about evolution. Especially needed are categories and external links/resources. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 16:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be consistent with the standard answer as at #holocaust denial above, would'nt it be best to rename it Misunderstandings and controversies ? .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New fork

message: Please vote for one of the two leads that keep getting switched between, as I don't want to edit war, and this seems a fair way to do it:
===Version 1===
Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.
The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation caused by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Through genetic drift, the frequency of heritable traits changes randomly. Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce will have more offspring, passing these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
===Version 2===
Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations. This includes both pre-existing traits as well as new traits introduced by accidental changes or damage (collectively called "mutations") to the genetic code that produces a trait. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to speciation: the development of a new species from existing ones. All organisms are related by common descent as a result of speciation from a single ancestor. 
Natural selection is a key part of this process. Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not. Therefore, the number of organisms with these traits will tend to increase with each passing generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
Other mechanisms of evolutionary change include genetic drift, or random changes in frequency of traits (most important when the traits are, at that time, reproductively neutral), and, at the population level, immigration from other populations can bring in new traits ("gene flow") and the founder effect, in which a small group of organisms isolated from the main population will have more of the traits of the founders for many generations after isolation, even when some of the traits are detrimental.
An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They both are so much better than what we had a few months ago, it is not even funny. Progress is definitely being made.--Filll 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *cough* because my mind skipped over the middle sentence as it's the end of a very long day, so I thought it was a different version. Adam Cuerden talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead vote 

message: Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations. This includes both pre-existing traits as well as new traits introduced by accidental changes or damage (collectively called "mutations") to the genetic code that produces a trait. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to speciation: the development of a new species from existing ones. All organisms are related by common descent as a result of speciation from a single ancestor. 
Natural selection is a key part of this process. Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not. Therefore, the number of organisms with these traits will tend to increase with each passing generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
Other mechanisms of evolutionary change include genetic drift, or random changes in frequency of traits (most important when the traits are, at that time, reproductively neutral), and, at the population level, immigration from other populations can bring in new traits ("gene flow") and the founder effect, in which a small group of organisms isolated from the main population will have more of the traits of the founders for many generations after isolation, even when some of the traits are detrimental.
An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: *Version 2 Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They both are so much better than what we had a few months ago, it is not even funny. Progress is definitely being made.--Filll 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: (edit conflict) Could you explain to me why you prefer Version 2, Adam? I honestly don't see any advantages to it; it's less accessible to readers, has more ambiguous and gramatically wanting phrasings, much longer, and has more non-basic (and even trivial) information, while lacking some vital information. Perhaps if we discussed your concerns with my version, we could find ways to improve it; and if we discussed yours, we could find ways to incorporate important information that my version loses into an early section of the article. There's nothing wrong with compromise. Consensus-building discussion is more important in the Wikipedia editing process than simple popularity polls, though I see no problem with a straw poll to find out where people stand now. -Silence 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* because my mind skipped over the middle sentence as it's the end of a very long day, so I thought it was a different version. Adam Cuerden talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is there any special need for the armadillo image in this article? It brings a lot of clutter, and very little necessary and unique information, to the page. At the very least, if we keep it I'd argue that we should both move it to a different part of the article and dramatically shorten its caption.
Also, I'm thinking we should remove 1 or 2 of the images in "Evidence of evolution", because they all currently deal with aquatic species and thus are a bit redundant. Any objections? We can replace them with more varied images of other types of evidence of evolution; there are plenty to choose fom already at Evidence of evolution, for starters. -Silence 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one else wants it, I would steal it for Introduction to evolution--Filll 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol --- Filll I'm glad to see you are still a supporter for the 'common man'. Sure ... we will take their rejects!!!! I thought I would let the article settle awhile ... I am impressed that it is holding its own. Is it apathy that has spared us the firestorm of criticism or we that good?!?! I sent it out to my science teacher contacts for review (without claiming ownership) and they came back with positive reviews. A couple thought it should address LaMarckism and the misconception of acquired characteristics. A common problem among high school students. "The appendix will disappeared because it is not needed". If anyone reading would like to write something up? Introduction to Evolution.  Several commented about the excess Dawkin's resources; all are excellent for lay-people... rahter than removing I wish someone well read on this topic would suggest a few more. Also, one of more more reliable critiques questioned the lack of citations. My argument is that it is a general introduction which translates to 'common' knowledge. Again, if anyone reading this has a different perspective --- combined with solutions; we are listening. We are not dogmatic --- with the exception of a desire to maintain readibility.--66.56.207.111 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there any specific aspects of Introduction to evolution you feel we should incorporate into Evolution? Are you correctly note, resistance to change has lessened, in large part thanks to the ongoing FA review and encouragement to experiment by editors like Filll. So now's the perfect time to propose and discuss implementing changes. -Silence 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armadillo image, etc.

message: Nice, but it sure takes a long time download for some reason.  Is it overkill?  I mean DNA is important to evolution (the Selfish Gene and all that), but it's not exactly the most critical aspect of Evolution, and there are two DNA molecules represented.Orangemarlin 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If other users agree that it slows load time significantly, then it can be replaced with the non-moving version, and a link to the moving version can be provided in the non-moving one's image description for people with faster loading speed to visit and view directly. However, I don't have any trouble at all loading the image quickly; does anyone else? -Silence 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but on a broadband connection the page loads nice and fast, then the image takes a looong time (ok, perhaps a minute) to appear. It rotates so far then jerks back to the start, which is a little distracting – the idea of a static image with a link to the moving version sounds good. .. dave souza, talk 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify.  Kind of like what Dave S said.  It loads, then kind of stalls out, then continues to load, then stalls.  I have a really high speed broadband, and I have rarely encountered this problem.  But it really is no big deal.  Orangemarlin 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We had the moving version on the Introduction to evolution article page but people complained about load time, so I replaced it with the stationary version. I personally have no problem with the moving version.--Filll 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-D DNA Molecule 

message: I don't see much in this article about the many current controversies within the field, or a link to another article in which I might read more about those. (There's a section on controversies with creationists, which is a separate matter.) I'm thinking of things like the frequently heated arguments between Gould, Lewontin et al vs Dawkins, Dennett et al on a number of matters. --Delirium 10:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These controversies start to get pretty sophisticated. Maybe we need a separate article for those?--Filll 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can list a few of the most important ones at the bottom of the "History" section; some, like the punctuated equilibrium issue, were formerly addressed in that section before the recent excess trimming. It shouldn't be difficult to at least very briefly touch on current controversies and disputes here; we can give dramatically more in-depth analysis in the lower sections of the daughter article History of evolutionary thought. -Silence 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd start with a paragraph, as short as possible, in an appropriate article until someone makes it into an article. Xiner (talk, email) 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had looked at History of evolutionary thought myself, but I didn't see anything there either. A few specific articles have sections on their controversial aspects (gene-centered view of evolution and punctuated equilibrium), but of course I can only find those if I already know that they're among the current controversies in the field. --Delirium 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current controversies within the field? 

message: With all the mention of transposons, pseudogenes and noncoding DNA seems we should mention Dawkins-Doolittle-Crick Selfish DNA hypothesis somewhere. Maybe too specific. GetAgrippa 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with some of Gould's work, you can view it either as a very specific nested hypothesis, or as the foundation for a major model of evolution.  I think both are accurate.  My solution would be to develop detailed articles on the selfish gene approach and another detailed article drawing heavily on Gould's last work, and have links to both here with brief summaries. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selfish DNA hypothesis