Talk:Evolution/Archive 27

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)

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)

I think I see what you mean Adam. Although linked in the intro it isn't explained in the text at all briefly. It does raise the issue also that mutation has its own section further down the page. I'll think a little about this becasue there is a structural issue to the section - just noticing that the sub-heading "variation" would be better as causes of variation or sources of variation for instance. I'll do the "at the site" change - holding on the new (although to be truthful with or without it doesn't make any difference if mutation needs a bit of explanation). Anyone else have a view? Candy 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I (DNAunion) changed this sentence before but it has been changed back to:
Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely.
My understanding of fixation is that it is when an allele completely replaces the other, not when it is lost from a population. I propose the sentence be changed to:
Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely - or reaches a frequency of zero and is lost from the population. --DNAunion 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes. The reader has to do some work. The article would be double the length and unreadable if every term was explained. We have to give the reader the fact they have some initiative. Candy 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An automated bot reversed User:Adam Cuerden recent changes to the article. Although I did not agree with them all, most of them looked pretty good in clearing up terminology and language. I didn't consider it vandalism. What happened? Here is the dif [] Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a partial restore of a version from a week ago, with a few modifications. I suppose it thought I was edit warring or something, instead of just trying to get this past the FA review. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think many of the current revisions have been hastily done. In cases - especially the into, the brevity and clarity is now replaced by an extended and weaker section. There are explanation in the introduction that do not need to be there. Not every term needs to be explained in an introduction. That is what the rest of the test is for. A simple link will do.

Phrases like "Natural selection is a key part of this process" are fluff imho. It dopes not add to the understanding of the article.

"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." Overwordy and imprecise. The original was marvellous to read. This is imho not.

This need reverting back or a clear explanation of why it was changed please.

Candy 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the old one listed terms without explaining things. Saying that "Natural selection and genetic drift dare the mechanisms it works by" - or whatever it was - does nothing to enlighten anyone who doesn't know what they are. Particularly egregious with genetic drift, which isn't generally taught in basic biology classes.

As well, we can't presuppose any significant studying of biology, as encyclopedias are often used by 12-14 year olds working on homework. This means briefly explaining things, particularly in the introduction, which should be the simplest (as in easiest to understand to the uneducated in biology, not necessarily as in short) and clearest statement of the point possible. Since we can't even presume High-school/A-level biology, we need to define terms as we go, as much as possible. As it is, I was wondering if "genetic code" was too much to leave unexplained. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't designed for 12-14 year olds. There is a junior version for that Adam. With respect to readership I still maintain that clarity and brevity always win out on constant explanation. Candy 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I claimed a bit too much, but, still, I'm not entirely convinced the study of biology is as widespread as it should be, and I, at least, think the lead benefits from being as accessible as possible, as, the way it is now or so, even if the rest is too advanced, the lead is welcoming, and possibly even gives enough information that the rest of the article can be understood. I suppose we could put up a request for comment or something, and ask if the lead over-explains, or if it's thought useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Adam, a wikipedia article is a document meant for the public: the opening should be clear, concise, set the stage and use a vocabulary that even a 12 year old could understand. Anything else is alienating and perhaps even pretentious. If there are terms in the introduction that need explaining, that's a signal that you are trying to do too much with it. Wikipedia may not be designed for 12-14 year olds, but it is designed for people who know nothing about the subject at hand. Same result, really, as far as the intro goes.Trishm 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it has its own article, I've tried to trim History of evolutionary thought to a minimum. It probably needs a little more work, but I think this is a start:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first convincing exposition^[1] of a mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: natural selection. However, while he was able to observe variation, infer natural selection and thereby adaptation, he did not know the basis of heritability. He could not explain how organisms might change over generations. It also seemed that when two individuals were crossed, their traits must be blended in the progeny, so that eventually all variation would be lost.

The blending problem was solved when the population geneticists R.A. Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane, married Darwinian evolutionary theory to population genetics, based on work by Gregor Mendel which 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.^[2]

The problem of what the mechanisms might be was solved in principle with 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.

Or what about

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.^[1]

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)

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)

Is that because Darwin has a big head? 8) Candy 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I like yours far better, with Dave's addition. It's short and to the point. Add it in! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick it in as a working model for now. I'm sure it can be improved though. Both suggestions taken on - picture size and "continues to develop". Why am I tempted to add the line "Must cook my tea now." 8=) What is nice about this is it mentions that the concept is old but we can dispense with (for this article) irrelevances like Lamarckism and Erasmus Darwin. Candy 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

History of evolutionary thought up to the modern synthesis

Main article: History of evolutionary thought

File:Mendel.png

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.^[1]

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.^[2]

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)

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)

N6 stated that the edit I made to the effect that evolution is not purely biological is contentious. What is contentious about it? The term is well used in a number of fields which are not biological. In fact, I plan to write an article on evolution (not just a disambiguation page, but evolution itself - the mathematical model/systems process which is behind "Evolution as a theory for the Origin of the Species") and there is a conflict because this article is mislabelled. What am I suppossed to call the other article? (Beside the point but, in case you're wondering, as a guy pursuing a Master's degree in a systems related field, I plan on doing a lot of work on the various systems topics - evolution just happens to be one of them.)-Psychohistorian 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant - and I agree if this is right - that adding in rather long disambiguation statements muddles the issue a lot, and doesn't actually add much more than the disambiguation link at the top of the page. The article's confusing enough for new readers - I don't think it helps much to add, if you'll forgive the opinion, somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements into the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements" While I understand that it might seem like a merely pedantic statement, there really is a significant distinction to be made.-Psychohistorian 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What is contentious is that you are adding unnecessary words that muddle the introduction. The otheruses template is there for exactly the same reason. This is an article on biological evolution and beyond mentioning that fact at the top of the page, it has no responsibility to discuss any other uses of the word "evolution".

To the layperson, "evolution" means biological evolution; it is entirely appropriate that this article be named the way it is. Nothing is mislabeled. Numerous articles on Wikipedia use potentially ambiguous page names to describe the most common usage, providing an otheruses template with a link to a disambiguation page.

I'm sure you can come up with a different name for your article. "Evolutionary modeling" and "Evolution (systems theory)" are two possibilities.

--N6 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We agree that the article is about biological evolution rather than just evolution. Consequently, it should be called biological evolution. Incidentally, if it were called biological evolution, we could create a seperate article called evolution which actually focused on evolution. While I agree with you that the layperson uses evolution incorrectly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not to perpetuate ignorance.

This article is mislabelled.-Psychohistorian 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be grossly inappropriate to move an article on a thing, of interest to a great many people (I believe Evolution consistantly ranks in the top 100 pages viewed) almost universally referred to as plain evolution (not biological evolution) out of that name, and replace it in that spot with an article that is, frankly, rather esoteric and far from the public view. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychohistorian: Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. This is a textbook example. N6 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I retract my objection. While I still think my point is right, I have to agree that whether or not my point is right, it's still constrained by policy.-Psychohistorian 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, I'd encourage you to discuss your objections on that article's talk page =) N6 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a single field of study where the word "evolution" out of context leads to the exact understanding of what is meant except in biology. Candy 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks. After reading over the FAR nom, the articles length was one of issues brought up and I have to say I agree. I thought it might be worth discussing merging the majority of the misunderstandings section to another article, as opposed to cutting valuable info on evolution itself.

Obviously some mention of the misunderstandings should be left on the Evolution page, but ultimately I think it should be properly dealt with at length elsewhere, with a Main page link or some such given at the beginning of the section.

We have the Creation-evolution controversy article at our disposal, and since the controversy article exists to cover any notable controversy, and reasons for it, I think it stands to reason that the misunderstandings section really belongs there as one of those reasons anyway. In this case a lot of the material is already (necessarily) covered there, so the merge wouldn't be that drastic.

Finally, it seems a waste to give as much space to misunderstandings of the concept as to the basic processes of the concept.

Anyway, just a thought since something needs to be done anyway. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said something about this on my talk page recently, "There is no room for creationism imho in a biological article about evolution except to link to creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution or (depending on the scope of the article), link to any ID or link to historical perspectives (eg Scope's Trial or abuse of Darwin by the media of the day) etc under the umbrella that this is relevent to a reader under the context of science in society.

So, I would go along with spinning it off. Candy 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that spinning off most of this section would be a good way to trim down the article. I'm not sure whether Creation-evolution controversy is the place to put it, though. In practice, those who hold such misunderstandings are almost universally creationists, but the misunderstandings themselves aren't necessarily relevant to creationism.

Of course, there is already discussion of this type in that article, so perhaps my small objection is moot. N6 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We have to remember that the article doesn't need to be smaller. It is a fundamental topic in the life sciences and if it is bigger than expected that is appropriate. Proof-reading and diligent editing can remove perhaps 5% of the wording and improve clarity. Hack and slay can remove substantially more (that is remove fluff which is added which need not be there). I think the controversies are fluff for this article. Links out need to be made. (Sorry for repeating myself.) Candy 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivilent about it: It's a useful section, I think, but we can probably work some of it in to other sections more easily. That said, Creation-evolution controversy is heavy on talk about creationist claims, and very low on debunking of them, so it might make a useful addition there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Had another look and changed my mind. Move it to Creation-evolution controversy to remove some of the bias against evolution there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that moving misunderstood material to the other page makes sense. Trishm 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are misunderstandings beyond the Creationist controversy, so a brief summary here is fully appropriate, and should not be part of the Social and religious controversies section. Moving it to the "controversy" page sounds good in terms of addressing the balance, and most if not all of the misunderstandings are propagated by creationists, but a new article linked as main from both articles might avoid problems with non-creationist misunderstandings. Anyway, a handy resource I've just come across is Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution which is probably worthwhile as an external link. .. dave souza, talk 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is important to remember, as Dave points out, that although they have a high vocal presence on en.Wikipedia (NB it doesn't occur on the German pages) creationists are really a very minor issue. There are other more important misconceptions. Candy 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered here if it might not be best to have a couple of paragraphs saying a controversy exists with a link or two. Look at what we did on Introduction to evolution. I would like to eventually propose a much better version of the controversy article and subarticles so that information would be more easily found on this topic. I would rather this article be mainly preserved for the science. Just MHO.--Filll 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the controversy should be linked. A couple of paragraphs is too little to do it justice and too much for a brief mention. A sentence or two at most. Candy 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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."^[3][4]

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)

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)

Did you read the rest of Evolution as theory and fact that you lifted it from?--Filll 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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) User:YouNeedASmackBot

I would presume this was removed because it's an unjustified and misleading statement by a nonscientist. Ironically, the citation provided uses the quote as an example of something Reagan said that is completely out of sync with the reality in the scientific community. It has no more place here than any other misleading quip from any other famous person. N6 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Oh, I see, block-evading champion VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) is back again. Other editors are discouraged from feeding this troll. N6 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User N6 is a sockpuppet suspect. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/N6 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) YouNeedASmackBot

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Although the modern synthesis is a major achievement of modern science -- this seems dubiously appropriate to me. I'm going to replace it with something a little more specific and NPOV. If anybody has a problem with that, don't hesitate to yell. N6 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is some discussion of this at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution--Filll 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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: