Talk:Evolution/Archive 28

I made similar comments in the talk page of the Creation-evolution controversy article, but I thought it might be best if I explain this here too. Ok...there is a distinction between a natural process and a scientific theory that, while it may be recognized, is certainly not being implemented. A natural process is something like a statement of fact: "the cup will drop to the floor when I release it from my hands" or "trees help prevent soil erosion." Evolution is a natural process; a statement of fact. It is not a scientific theory, which brings us to the crucible of what a scientific theory is: a wide system of rules that provide a mechanism to explain a series of naturalistic phenomena. Evolution is not that. Natural selection, the main scientific theory that forms the mechanism for evolution, satisfies that role. We have to mention this somehow, despite public perceptions. Evolution is not a theory because it does not have a mechanism; it is a natural process. Natural selection is the theory. I propose that we take away the word "theory" whenever it appears in front of evolution, unless someone is making a charge. It is a horrible misnomer, and an irritating one.UberCryxic 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I certainly understand the motivation for this, I wonder since this an encyclopedia if it might not confuse issues to avoid the use of the term "theory of evolution" ever, particularly when there are more than one mechanism in the theory (the original being natural selection of course).--Filll 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I know of "evolution", UberCryxic, this is incorrect. Random House defines evolution as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift". This provides three mechanisms within the definition of evolution, including natural selection. The American Heritage Dictionary, likewise, defines evolution as "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". This demonstrates that evolution encompasses both the factual ("change in the genetic composition fo a population") and the theoretical ("as a result of natural selection"). -Silence 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "theory of evolution" isn't meant to convey that the natural process of evolution is merely theorized. It signifies a theoretical framework of proposed mechanisms for the natural process of evolution. In other words, "evolution" and "theory of evolution" are separate concepts. This is analogous to the distinction between the process of gravity (any two massive objects experience a mutually attractive force in at least approximate accordance with Newton's law of gravity) and a theory of gravity such as Einstein's curved space-time. N6 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The same editor came down heavily on me on the distinction between gravity and gravitation. I am a physicist and to be honest, we use them interchangeably (possibly incorrectly) all the time. However, it is fairly obvious to me that his science training is not particularly extensive from conversations with him yesterday. I am willing to entertain such notions to see where they lead, but only up to a point, when they confuse the arguement or introduce untruths into the article. I have to clean up a bunch of his changes at the controversy article.--Filll 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution isn't a fact the way you suggest here Ubercryxic.

You will get into terrible problems arguing that an observation is a process and there is a theory to support it.

There are observations and hypotheses. Theories being well supported hypotheses. A cup falls. This is not gravity. The theory of graviation explains this.

We shorthand this by saying the cup falls due to gravity (the cup falls and we explain it by our theory of gravity). Gravity is our explanation of the cup falling. It is not the process.The process is falling (or a more accuarte description thereof). I hope you see the distinction?

Because, to our repeated observations, the cup falls, the observation becomes a fact. Our theories wait for an exception to prove it. The theory may stand, fall or be modifed.

Evolution is a scientific theory which explains certain observations (facts). The mechanism is outined in the theory. (Please note I'm talking here about theories which themsleves have been proved many, many times and still stand - therefore effectively becoming facts).

And Filll is correct, unless you are working in a research area to do with gravity then the terms gravity and gravitation is effectively identicall. I know I doin't distinguish in everyday and most scientific uses unless I really, really need to (and that's been only once ever).

Finally, just before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I'm using the word "prove" in the sense of test. Candy 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Miscommunication is common due to common words commonly being used both to convey common experience and to also designate carefully defined things, yielding such interactions as:

1. When I drop it, it falls due to gravity and when the astronaut dropped it it did not fall so there is no gravity in space. (There is gravity in space, both the astronaut and the object are falling at the same rate so it looks like its not falling) Yeah but they don't feel the gravity.
2. Oh, look at that insect! (It's not an insect, insects have six legs.) Oh, you know what I mean!
3. Evolution is just a theory and not a fact and I never saw anything evolve and besides a lot of people don't believe its true and facts are things everyone knows are true so it has to be just a theory and anyway that's what scientists do isn't it making up fancy theories and if it were a fact why would they still be studying it instead of something else that needs to be studied to see if is is a fact or not... WAS 4.250 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These are the sort of people who think the Guiness Book of Records is something to be learned. 8) Candy 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This gets confused because we are a bit sloppy and use shorthand descriptions. For example, there are several "theories of optics", several "theories of quantum mechanics", several "theories of everything", several "theories of heat" (kinetic, caloric, phlogisten, etc), several "theories of gravity" (Aristotle, Galilean, Newtonian, Einsteinian, etc) and several "theories of evolution" (Lamarckian, Transmutation and Orthogenesis, Darwinian, neoDarwinian, etc). So the general public, who are generally completely ignorant of this, and sometimes as "dumb as as stump", just get lost and confused.--Filll 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For my usual non-expert rant, evolution is a series of facts and a series of theories which are grouped together in the synthesis commonly called the theory of evolution. The essential facts are that organisms can be grouped into an enormous and changing number of types called species, these show homologies consistent with common descent, fossils show even more change through the past in a consistent sequence, and heritable variation can be observed within species and into closely related species. The basic theories are; these indications do indeed show common descent, there's no reason for variation to stop at some "species boundary", and natural selection with its offshoots explains the development of this complexity. The alternative non-scientific hypothesis is that some entity beyond our ken performs miracles to create species/genera/kinds which are only allowed to vary within that boundary. Many people have faith in that hypothesis, but have been unable to produce scientific evidence to back it up. Would it help if we describe creationism thus? .. dave souza, talk 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well stated Dave ... except the last bit. Perhaps a misapplication of hypothesis. Supernatural miracles can't be a hypothesis as either there are no repeatable observations or access to observations are limited to maintain the awe of the miracle. As they are not repeatable or not visible they cannot be used to create a hypothesis about the event. Hmm, (looks over shoulder), not seen many Creationists on this site recently. Do you think they're all planning to bash us with their bibles soon?? Candy 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a lot to respond to and obviously I'm not going to get all of it, or even most of it. For that I apologize. To Silence: the relevant definition that you gave by Random House is this, "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation." That's the statement of fact, the natural process. The following, "by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift," is meant to reveal that evolution is inextricably linked to these processes, but it does not mean they are the same. Those last three are, indeed, processes, but they are also scientific theories. Evolution, by itself, is just a statement of fact. If we end up thinking that it is only synonymous with these theories, then we'd have to conclude that evolution was created by Darwin! But, of course, as even this article mentions, evolution as a concept was proposed way before Darwin.

People are giving misguided descriptions of the problem at hand. Of course the cup falls because of the effects of gravitation, but that's not the issue. People could describe that the cup falls 5,000 years ago just as well as they could describe that it falls after Newton introduced the force of gravity or after Einstein completed General Relativity. The difference is that they could not really explain why it fell those 5,000 years ago. In modern times, we've conceived sophisticated mechanisms, inherent in the scientific theories, for explaining these phenomena.

While I don't appreciate the ad hominem aspect of Fill's comments, I think I can ignore it. Nevertheless, he is approaching somewhere around the truth in recognizing that physicists screw these terms up all the time. For example, in the context of Newtonian mechanics, gravitation is the attractive force between two objects with mass. Gravity is the force between Earth and other objects with mass. See here: . The problem is that Newton's theory of gravitation is no longer held to be correct, so it makes no sense to use these terms when they were left in the dustbin of history. Now, "gravitation" is anything that, to get a tad colloquial here, has to do with things like planets orbiting the sun, stars orbiting the center of the galaxy, and so on. It's a much more general term that describes these effects. Today, our prime theory of gravitation is Einstein's GR.

To Candy: you are making the same mistake as Silence. You are associating evolution with the scientific theories that make it work and refusing to see the distinction between the two; that is, that they are separate concepts, not the same thing. Evolution is just a statement of what happens in nature. That's it. It stops right there. If we want, and humans being curious we do, we can go on and talk about natural selection and puncutated equilibrium, which explain how evolution happens. By itself, evolution has no mechanism, and it is not a mechanism. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory. The proposed mechanisms that describe how evolution occurs are the aforementioned, among others. Again, please note that no one here, at least I hope, would consider evolution a scientific theory in the time prior to the publication of the Origin in 1859. Some people before Darwin had a hunch that life on Earth might change somehow, what we call evolution, but they didn't know why or how, which took Darwin to explain.UberCryxic 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. You admit a distinction between evolution and theories about evolution, but you object to... what? The use of "theory of evolution" to refer to evolution rather than theories about it? Where in this article is the phrase used in that way? N6 21:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In this particular article, there are two instances of "theory of evolution," but they are both used in the context of natural selection ("theory of evolution by natural selection"), which doesn't bother me too much, even though it is technically wrong (should be "evolution by the theory of natural selection" or "evolution by the theory and process of natural selection," since natural selection can be thought of both as theory and process, but evolution certainly not). The problem is for other articles, where evolution is often used with the word "theory." That's what bothered me, and I wrote about it here because this seems to be the hub for discussions relating to evolution.UberCryxic 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the English language, or at least you are grouping phrases in a way that is clearly not intended. It's "(theory of) (evolution by natural selection)", not "((theory of) evolution) (by natural selection)". N6 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, even the phrase "theory of evolution" shouldn't be offensive: it signifies theories about evolution, not that evolution itself is merely theorized. N6 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I also should note somewhat of a change of heart in Fill. When I broached the issue in the other talk page about the distinction between evolution as a natural process and theory, he was quite enthusiastic: "Quite correct. In my next version of the Theory vs. Fact section and article, I will make that far more clear, hopefully." He is, of course, right to say that I was correct, because this is fairly obvious. It's just taking so long because of the wider political context, which I think has affected everyone, scientists and non-scientists.UberCryxic 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

UberyCyrix, I believe you misunderstand me. You ARE correct in pointing out that there is a confusion between process and theory, both of which sometimes get the same names and make things very confused (as I tried to point out with several examples above). I do NOT intend to make any ad hominem attacks on you. I am willing to entertain your gravity/gravitation distinction, and research it to understand it a bit better. Physicists are not known for necessarily always being precise in nomenclature, and this might be an example of where the standard usage is wrong. If so, I would be glad to learn it, but I am not sure that it would change how I write about it, especially since I am trying to use it as an example to cast light on this very confused area of evolution. And I am still concerned about the term "Theory of Evolution" which you will find has a huge number of google hits. We cannot unilaterally banish that phrase from the language, even if we wanted to. We are an encyclopedia. Perhaps there would be less confusion if that phrase had never been used. I could agree with that. It would have been better to have two words; evolution for the process, and evolution^T for the theory, or something like that. However, that is not the situation we are trying to describe, or trying to clarify.--Filll 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, misunderstandings appear to be running both ways. The gravity/gravitation distinction is not important to me in this context. I only introduced that as an example to highlight what's wrong with thinking about evolution as a theory. I certainly did not mean for you to undertake a rigorous research program on it. I also did not state that you made any ad hominem attacks; I said you mentioned some ad hominem "aspects," which don't necessarily have to be attacks. For example, a compliment is just as much of an ad hominem aspect to the argument as an insult. Unless ad hominem aspects somehow relate to the argument, they should never be made. But like I said, I don't really care, mainly because of its irrelevance to the argument, but also because the truth is that you are more well-versed in the subject than I am, so it's not like I can contest the claim, even though contextually it means nothing.

It is quite palpable that the words "evolution" and "theory" are often found together and are inextricable from each other. However, this should not prevent people from noticing and making the distinction doubly evident. There is a strong difference between the term "evolution" and "natural selection." At this point, the similarities are completely clouding that, mostly because of, as I said, the political context. When someone ignorantly asks scientists to explain why evolution is "just a theory," scientists are often compelled to get drawn into the game and clarify to that person that in science the term "theory" has quite a robust structure, and has had one ever since the logical positivists toyed with their ideas in the early 20th century. Biologists do realize that natural selection is the scientific theory; that's not news to them. They mostly speak about evolution in the context of those aforementioned people, trying to show them how they're misusing the word "theory" in a scientific context, when they should be telling them, "Hey douche [ok leave this part out], the basis for your conception is wrong. Evolution is not a theory. Conversation over."UberCryxic 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, with respect to "Today, our prime theory of gravitation is Einstein's GR." I will note that GR is almost 100 years old, and starting to show its age. It does not account for repulsive gravity, and there is no quantum aspect to gravity, and it does not unify very cleanly with anything else. The assorted GUTs and TOEs and quantum gravity theories are evidence of the fraying edges of GR. GR is well on its way to being replaced. It is only that the Witten-type models are pretty much nonfalsifiable at this point that keeps it from being moved from the "current science" category to the "history of science" category. Even those are fairly ugly in a certain way, if you look under the hood, although the press just loves to fawn over this stuff with basically zero understanding.--Filll 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is showing age, but it's also still the most widely used scientific theory in cosmology today.UberCryxic 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• "the relevant definition that you gave by Random House is this, "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation." That's the statement of fact, the natural process." - No, the relevant definition I gave you by Random House is this: "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift". Ignoring half of the definition because you don't think it's "relevant", in order to show that the definition is purely factual and non-theoretical, is begging the question. I gave you two dictionary definitions that included both facts and theories in the definition of evolution; your response was simply to ignore the theoretical part, dismissing it out-of-hand as not "relevant". Clearly this is a weak rebuttal.
• "That's the statement of fact, the natural process." - Pointing out that part of the dictionary definition is factual doesn't erase the fact that part of it is theoretical. Your argument is that evolution is never theoretical; my argument is that it is sometimes factual (referring to a process), sometimes theoretical (referring to an explanation for that process, such as the modern synthesis), and sometimes both (referring both to the process and its explanation). If you are correct, then we should dismiss all theoretical uses of evolution as simply incorrect, prescriptively advocating a certain definition as "right" and criticizing all others as "wrong"; if I am correct, then there are multiple uses of the word, and we should account for all of them, depending on context, and explain the confusion and ambiguity, rather than ignoring it. I substantiated my argument with dictionary citations; you substantiated it with nothing except your own repeated opinion. You'll have to do better than that if you want to redefine a word.
• "The following, "by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift," is meant to reveal that evolution is inextricably linked to these processes, but it does not mean they are the same." - Of course they aren't the same. But that doesn't mean that one is "evolution" and one isn't. No two cats are alike, but they're still called "cats". The problem with your argument here is that I cited a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Whereas you might have a point if I'd cited an encyclopedia, as you could argue that only the beginning of the sentence was definitional, whereas the rest is going beyond that to explain the already-defined word, because I cited a dictionary, it cannot be argued that part of the definition is not part of the definition. You might argue that the dictionaries are wrong, but you can't argue that they're simply not defining a word when they clearly are. If you were correct and the definition of evolution was simply and universally "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation", with no theoretical explanations involved, then why wouldn't those two dictionaries have simply put something like that in their entries for evolution? The fact that they didn't requires explanation, and the simplest explanation is that there is a theoretical component to the very word evolution, as it is commonly used in a biological context. Whether you personally feel that that usage is "wrong" doesn't somehow make it just go away.
• "Evolution, by itself, is just a statement of fact." - Or it's a statement of theory. It depends on context. It is not semantically incorrect to say something like "According to evolution, all species have a common ancestor", or even "Evolution says that all species have a common ancestor", at least in a colloquial context. In these contexts, "evolution" is shorthand for "evolutionary theory". Ignoring such usage, despite how very common it is, is counterproductive and will cause more misunderstandings and ambiguities than it would resolve, at the very least for laypeople reading the evolution articles, who are our primary audience.
• "If we end up thinking that it is only synonymous with these theories, then we'd have to conclude that evolution was created by Darwin!" - Which is not actually incorrect, as long as "evolution" is defined as "Darwinian evolutionary theory". We can say things like "Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection" (as opposed to "Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection") without causing confusion; we can likewise say "Darwin used evolution to explain the diversity of the world", or "Creationists believe that evolution can't account for the diversity of life in the world". These meanings may not be as "good" as meanings which are strictly limited to observed processes and events, but they still exist, and it is not Wikipedia's place to dismiss them out-of-hand. We should, instead, strive for clarity in which form of the word we are using. What is important is not the words we use, but the ideas we convey; sorry to say it, but Wikipedia's purpose is to be informative and reliable, not to reshape the English language according to our personal preferences. As long as we are clear and unambiguous in how we are using the word, and as long as there is no better alternative in a specific context (and remember, this must always be handled contextually and on a case-by-case basis), there is no purpose in ignoring an entire class of word definitions when neither common usage nor practicality demands it.
• "But, of course, as even this article mentions, evolution as a concept was proposed way before Darwin. " - Sure, in a sense. But the modern view of evolution—which includes not only the more theoretical ideas of natural selection, but also even the basic parts of the definition like "genetic change"—is what determines the meaning of the word evolution in biology.
• "you are making the same mistake as Silence." - What you see as a "mistake", we see as a point of view. If you wish to advocate your view without violating WP:NPOV, you will need to provide strong evidence indeed that your view is uncontroversially and absolutely correct, and that everyone else's is simply based on misunderstandings or errors. You have failed to do so thus far, so you are not justified in calling something a "mistake" just because it disagrees with you. Alternative word definitions are not "mistakes".
• "You are associating evolution with the scientific theories that make it work and refusing to see the distinction between the two;" - Of course we see a distinction between evolution as fact and evolution as theory. We just don't say that "evolution as theory" is nonsensical or meaningless. Evolution is a word with different meanings and senses, depending on its context. We can distinguish between those meanings without prescriptively mandating that one meaning be considered universally "right" while the other be considered universally "wrong", when both are in common usage and there is no clear reason to favor one over the other, except as the context demands.
• By the way, if you have sources to back your claims up, I recommend taking them to Evolution (term) to help flesh that article out. :) It's an interesting topic for discussion and analysis regardless of what definition(s) we end up settling on, so it's in our readers' best interests that we explain the issue to them (as long as, as I noted, you can back it up with reliable sources). -Silence 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> For another wee summary, we could say that evolution is a name for a series of facts showing that there is a process resulting in lots of species, these facts are explained in science by what is commonly called the theory of evolution, comprising natsel etc. Various people with faith positions, while usually accepting these mechanisms operating within species, contend that these explanations don't apply to "Created kinds" which require supernatural interventions. And think that should be called science too. Back to natural theology! .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, when we try to redefine terminology when it is in common usage, and in scientific usage, what do we do with THIS sort of stuff:

• Stephen Jay Gould: "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."^[3]
• Neil Campbell: "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate..."^[4]
• Ernst Mayr: "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact...And evolutionary change is also simply a fact..."^[5]
• Richard Lenski: "Evolution...is both a fact and a theory."^[6]
• Carl Sagan: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory."^[7]
• George Simpson: "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."^[8]
• R. C. Lewontin: "...evolution is a fact, not theory"^[9]
• Douglas Futuyama: "...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact..."^[10]
• H. J. Muller: "evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."^[11]
• Kenneth R. Miller: "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."^[12]
• Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes: "Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution..."^[13]

(All from my rewrite of the Theory vs. Fact article).--Filll 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A nice comparison I saw made not that long ago (less than a year ago) and raised here an eternity ago (less than a year ago):

the theory of evolution by means of natural selection

vs

the theory of falling by means of gravitation

There is, of course, not one theory, but many theories regarding how evolution (the observation) occurs. Calling evolution a theory is a misnomer, but one that has become well established. Ideally "evolution" should be used to describe the process, and the mechanisms which cause evolution should be called that, mechanisms of evolution. But (much like gravity) the terms for the observation and the mechanism are used interchangeably...and are called evolution. We can't re-define usage, not even in the interest of clearer communication. Guettarda 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that example. I might just have to swipe it for the rewrite ! And of course, there are many other things that can influence evolution besides natural selection, just like there are many other things that can influence "falling" (that is, an object moving towards the center of the earth) besides gravity (electromagnetic effects, air friction, air movement and entrainment forces, collisions with cosmic rays and other particles, radiation pressure, etc).--Filll 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Silence, I am not going to respond in between your statements because I think that is confusing for everyone involved. I will instead reply in the same manner you did. Anyway…

Unfortunately, the problems of natural languages and their inability to convey clear meaning are quite evident here. What I actually quoted from you is the relevant definition of the term evolution, whereas you gave the definition of evolution with its associated scientific theories. That part is irrelevant, so I gave you the relevant one to understand my position, which you obviously don’t, noting the following: I would be begging the question if I were trying to show that evolution is different from, say, natural selection and automatically assumed that there is a difference, but I am not trying to show that. I have assumed it as true, as a priori, already. At best, you can attack my assumption, but this is not begging the question.

The mere fact that I highlighted that part of the definition in no way indicates that I am trying to change the linguistic and nomological attributes of the term “evolution.” It simply shows that the meaning of the term can be understood and has existed separately from the scientific theories that explain it. This is apparent from the existence of the idea of evolution before Darwin. Georges Louis Buffon, the great 18th century French naturalist and author of the 36-volume Natural History, had speculated, in opposition to Linnaeus, that fossil studies revealed that the properties and appearances of various species changed as a result of environmental conditions. He wrote, “Life and movement, instead of being a metaphysical degree of existence, are physical properties of matter.” Those are some of the earliest conceptions of a good idea of what evolution means. But how many of us would call that a scientific theory? I notice irony here: you are accusing me of changing the meaning of evolution, but I am accusing you of doing the same thing. Evolution did not acquire meaning with Darwin, which is what your view commits us to. In fact, the very term ‘evolution’ was created by Herbert Spencer, so if there’s anyone that you should be lunging yourself after, it’s him, for creating so many misconceptions about what Darwin wrote.

Your statements in the second paragraph are deliberately misleading. If we want to understand evolution, and as I said we do, then we have to understand it in the context of the theories that have been proposed already. It’s no secret that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, and evolution does not make sense without natural selection. It is this close affinity between the two that has led to the mistake you are now making.

Your third paragraph seems to emphasize linguistics above other aspects. This is a waste of time on your part because I am not saying that the dictionary got the definition wrong, or at least not too wrong. The dictionary put up a definition most connected with the sociological aspects of the term ‘evolution.’ It is not that wrong per se, but it does emphasize parts that do not need to be emphasized.

Your fourth paragraph brings to an important junction. If “evolutionary theory” means “evolution,” then I’m satisfied. But if, as I suspect, you’re blowing hot air, contriving arguments with no justification just to make your point, and “evolutionary theory” actually means the associated theories that explain the natural process of evolution, then we still have a very real problem. Then you can’t use them vicariously because they don’t mean the same thing, and that in and of itself will lead to more, not less, confusion. Evolution is no more a statement of theory than erosion, a cup dropping to the floor, or a soccer ball getting kicked into the net. Those are all natural observations and processes that humans have constructed scientific theories to explain, but they are not scientific theories by themselves. It does not make any logical sense to hold them in that regard, and I must convey my deepest surprise at your position.

On your next paragraph, here’s what is incorrect: Darwin did not conceive the notion of evolution. That happened long before him. As I said, the very term ‘evolution’ is a bastardly invention of Spencer, who was quite adept at manipulating what Darwin wrote. You’ll note in the Origin that, true to the title, the phrase “origin of species” creeps up a lot. This problem, of what and how it caused the “origin of species,” was one that was being investigated by many biologists, not just Darwin. But this “origin of species” is what should be synonymous with “evolution,” and in their time biologists knew the distinction (as they do now, of course, but look above as to why they talk about evolution as theory). That is, we all know that species change somehow (evolution), but we want to explain how and why they change (scientific theories). This is a distinction that needs to be noted. I am quite alright with your suggestions about Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection” is fine with me, but the reason why I made this an issue is because I do not notice that happening currently, at least in some Wikipedia articles (it’s not that much of a problem in this one).

Your conceptions on the “modern” or “Darwinian” senses of evolution make you a good candidate for meriting the accusations that you levelled at me. I would have no problem if this was specified, but it is not. We speak about “evolution” and that’s it. We don’t speak about “modern biological conceptions of evolution” or “Darwinian evolution,” which, if we did, would incur no wrath from me. When we say evolution, there is a whole history there, and it does not start with Darwin, which is something that people confuse all the time. What starts with Darwin, finally, is the big mystery about what propels evolution forward, and Darwin was not the only working on the problem, although he was the one that pretty much get it right (more or less). I notice that you are making this mistake and would advise that you discontinue.

Your charge that I have no evidence is silly. What do you think inspired my idea? I’m not that clever. Here is Chris Colby in Introduction to Evolutionary Biology (see here: ) speaking about how “The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.” And again: “The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an inference about the process of macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record.” That’s a linguistically great scientist right there! I could wish that all scientists were that careful about the way that they throw words around, but I guess that’s why we have linguists.

"Of course we see a distinction between evolution as fact and evolution as theory."

Haha! What??? And who is begging the question? There is no such thing as "evolution as theory." There's "natural selection as theory" or "punctuated equilibrium as theory," but evolution is an umbrella term referring to the changes in a population over time, and, again, it has a history behind it that you can't ignore just because you want to. I will gather many more sources if need be. I do, however, have no compunction about easily recognizing that most scientists are not very careful when it comes to this issue, so you'll have a steady stream of more people who have made this mistake than not out of sociological context, not a rational one.UberCryxic 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, in light of the quotes: I firmly believe that evolution is a fact. To me, evolution is as real as the keys that I'm typing on right now. In that sense, I think those quotes just confuse the issue, because nowhere was I implying that the status of evolution as factual is being threatened or something.UberCryxic 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see that you failed to provide any references to support your firmly-held belief that evolution is not a theory. Consequently, it doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you; WP:NOR (not to mention WP:NPOV) prohibits us from attempting to abolish all uses of "evolution" in the theoretical (or factual+theoretical, as in the dictionaries I cited) sense. Furthermore, to add to Filll's ever-growing, and prestigious, list of scientists and academics who rejected the idea that evolution is not a theory, here is a quotation from Eugenie Scott's excellent book on the creation-evolution controversy. Scott goes further than most of the above quotes to actually dispute whether evolution is a fact at all, quite destroying the notion that all authorities or experts on the matter consider evolution to be a fact, rather than a theory; there seems to be more support, if anything, for the opposite being the case:

"Evolution, we hear from anti-evolutionists, is "only a theory" and should not be presented as "fact." Of course evolution is a theory, retort the evolutionary scientists. Theories are much more important than facts! Antievolutionists respond that even if evolution is a theory in the scientific sense (of explanation), it isn't a very good theory, and isn't supported by the evidence....

"One hears from many scientists, "Evolution is a FACT!!!" The meaning here is that evolution, the "what happened," is so well supported that we don't argue about it, anymore than we argue about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. We accept that change through time happened, and go on to try to explain how. What we mean and what is heard is often different, however. What the public hears when scientists say "Evolution is FACT!" is that we treat evolution as unchallengeable dogma, which it isn't.

"We must learn to present evolution not as "a fact" in this dogmatic sense, but "matter of factly," as we would present heliocentrism and gravitation as "facts," but they are not "facts" in my definition of "confirmed observations." Instead, they are powerful inferences from many observations, which are not in themselves unquestioned, but used to build more detailed understandings.

"From the standpoint of philosophy of science, the "facts of evolution" are things like the anatomical structural homologies such as the tetrapod forelimb, or the biochemical homologies of cross species protein and DNA comparisons, or the biogeographical distribution of plants and animals. The "facts of evolution" are observations, confirmed over and over, such as the presence and/or absence of particular fossils in particular strata of the geological column (one never finds mammals in the Devonian, for example). From these confirmed observations we develop an explanation, an inference, that what explains all of these facts is that species have had histories, and that descent with modification has taken place. Evolution is thus a theory, and one of the most powerful theories in science."

• You should be glad that it isn't Wikipedia's job to pick and choose between word definitions and try to rewrite the English language. If it was, then it's at least as likely that we'd have to end up redefining evolution as purely theoretical, rather than purely factual. It's because we don't have to make decisions like that—we simply report on other people's usage, we don't weigh in on such disagreements any more than absolutely necessary—that we're free from having to argue back and forth about which is the "best" definition. -Silence 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Silence's comment. I am glad to see Prof. Scott's text. It is easy to find several hundred other instances where scientists use or discuss the "theory of evolution". Well it might cause confusion, just like scientists who are too "stupid" or "careless" to distinguish between gravity and gravitation. But that is the nature of the world. We cannot remake it as we would like. We can only describe and explain the world as it is. Lots of stupid things in language exist, lots of misuse which becomes so common that it becomes standard usage, etc. I am sure all of us could give many examples. However, the mission of WP cannot be to undo over a century of misuse by many many millions of people and millions of scientists. We just have to deal with it as it is. If I could go back and in time and advise Darwin, or maybe one of his predecessors, to write "evolution" for the factual observed process, and "tevolution" for the myriad explanations for this process, it might help. Unfortunately, that is not an option open to us. So it is sort of silly to argue about how nice it would be (I realize you claim you are not trying to change usage, but if that is not what you are doing, then I am not sure what is going on here). Should we keep this in mind and be careful when writing? Of course. That is part of the reason I wrote the "theory vs. fact" article and sections, and why I am rewriting it to make it even more precise and cited with many many very high quality sources. But, beyond that, I do not know what we can do. It is what it is.--Filll 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you read, with at least a modicum of attention, what I wrote. I did provide evidence, so your claim that I did not is astounding. Again, here is what Chris Colby writes in Introduction to Evolutionary Biology (you can find that here: ):

• “The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.”

• “The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an inference about the process of macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record.”

This is really weird, kind of like a mild nightmare. Did you even see this? Whatever, I'll just try to ignore it, though hopefully you can understand my obfuscation. If I get into an argument, I hope the opposing side will accord me the same respect that I give them. I even explicitly wrote that I myself did not think of the distinction. Where did I get it from? From biologists!

Filll's prestigious list also includes scientists that state that evolution is a fact and not a theory. Again, one is compelled to ask, did you even read Filll's list? Or are you lying? Just in case you missed those:

• Carl Sagan: Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
• R. C. Lewontin: ...evolution is a fact, not theory
• Douglas Futuyama: ...the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact...

I am quite baffled, but I'm sure you have a good explanation for all this. All this hoopla, however, misses the point, one which I made quite clear earlier: scientists do make a mistake when it comes to this issue. They're not perfect and they're not linguists. Your author is hardly credible with a statement like, "we treat evolution as unchallengeable dogma, which it isn't." Of course it is! Simply because it is challenged sociologically does not mean that it is challenged empirically or rationally. Evolution is one of the most absolutely true things a human could EVER think of, simply because the evidence is so enormous that to "challenge it," which I take for "to joke about it," means one is already placing oneself on unrational grounds and holding completely unjustifiable standards. Her conclusion is spectacularly ridiculous. Imagine the following scenario, analyze on Scott's terms: I kick a soccer ball into the net. Let's see: everyone can confirm the observations; I've kicked the ball into the net. Nothing controversial there. Then we develop an inference, or explanation: the ball went into the net because my foot struck it. That's a scientific theory? Clearly it cannot be. It is absolutely silly.

All this aside, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I'm not interested in debating you or Scott on that count. I just want you to recognize that I have offered evidence for my views, and so has Filll. Like I said, I can get more material in a similar vein, but I just don't think it's necessary, because you will always be able to find more than I. That does not make you right, however. It merely highlights the sociopolitical context that has inspired the use of the term 'evolution' in that sense. Scientists had to grow up too; they've grown up all their lives so often hearing "evolution is theory" that many have come to believe it, quite atrociously.UberCryxic 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To Filll: I am not naive; I realize this will not change in Wikipedia, which is supposed to document already known human wisdom, not be avant garde. But I don't believe that it is too much to ask to say simply "evolution" where "theory of evolution" comes up; one could see it as just making a simpler phrase rather than introducing a whole new intellectual context (people won't see it that way, of course, but that's one way you could see it, letting your imagination run a little). Either way, there is substance in what I'm saying and I've highlighted that, even giving a legitimate reference, which apparently I didn't, according to Silence (*rolls eyes*).UberCryxic 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To me this seems like a "distinction without a difference", as it were, or an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We all KNOW that evolution is a process. We all KNOW that the modern synthesis/NeoDarwinian theory or even the Darwinian theory are commonly called the "theory of evolution". We all know this causes confusion, but is commonly used nevertheless. We could try to remove it or minimize its use in our article, but then there would be no frame of reference for people who know it as the theory of evolution. I am not aware that we are overusing the phrase. And I think that just replacing all instances of "theory of evolution" with "evolution" will cause even more problems and confusion. I think that replacing all instances of processes or facts of evolution with "process of evolution" might make for text that is graceful in all instances, although I do try to distinguish when I write (however, I am not sure I accomplish that). You have made your point. We agree with you. We actually agreed with you before you made it. So what should we do about it?--Filll 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This claim does not have only terminological interest. It relates to problems in the philosophy of science (calling evolution a "theory" means we inject into the term "evolution" some sort of mechanism to describe itself) and in its history ("evolution" did not just pop into existence with Darwin; the term was invented by Spencer and the foundational problems of evolution were being tackled by other people besides Darwin; the very fact that Darwin got it right implies that we do note a distinction between what Darwin got right - natural selection - and the problem that he was working on - evolution). I already said what should be done about it: replace "theory of evolution" with "evolution," or, in another twist, explain the controversy that exists if you want to keep using the term "theory of evolution." I'd be fine with the second option; disclaimers never hurt anyone.UberCryxic 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give specific pointers to places on Wikipedia where "theory of evolution" is used to signify the changing frequency of alleles through successive generations? This entire debate is entirely academic without examples. I suspect the entire "problem" is that you are misinterpreting perfectly sensible uses of the phrase that really refer to a larger theoretical framework. N6 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryxic, I read your entire post. Like I said, you provided no references that said that evolution is not (much less that it never is) a theory. Filll is the only one who provided examples of anyone saying that evolution isn't a theory, and Filll provided many more examples of people saying that it is a theory, so obviously that's grossly inadequate for proving that evolution can't describe a theory. You provided a single example of a resource describing the fact of evolution (and since that reference had to go to the trouble of saying "process of evolution" rather than just "evolution", your citation actually supports the idea that "evolution" is sometimes used to refer to a theory, rather than 100% of the time to an observed process); the resource mentions nowhere that it is incorrect to ever use the word "evolution" in a theoretical sense. And even if it did, we've already provided over a dozen references that disagree; clearly this is not as clear-cut an issue as you wish that it were, and consequently the correct response on Wikipedia's part is simply to neutrally report on the disagreement, not to weigh in on it by specifically advocating one view or another. As I said, an excellent place to discuss this disagreement would be Evolution (term), and another one would be Evolution as theory and fact; there's plenty of room to provide all the major views on the matter. -Silence 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google hits:

• "Theory of evolution" 1.08 million
• "evolutionary theory" 1.03 million
• "Darwin's theory" 0.627 million
• "Process of evolution" 0.527 million
• "theory of natural selection" 0.486 million
• "Darwinian theory" 0.319 million
• "evolutionary theories" 273 thousand
• "theories of evolution" 177 thousand
• "fact of evolution" 68.6 thousand
• "theory of biological evolution" 38.2 thousand

So...it does appear that the phrase "theory of evolution" is heavily used by someone. Perhaps incorrectly, but someone is using it. --Filll 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think UberCryxic is wrong here. Natural selection is the process through which evolution operates. Evolution is a theory as well a fact. These I think are very clear facts. Btw, I won't be here to argue over it. :) Xiner (talk, email) 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I will address all of your points tomorrow. I have to watch Bush's speech in a few minutes, but I just want to say something to Xiner. I actually clarified before that natural selection is a scientific theory and can be thought of as a natural process. Both of those designations would be correct for that term. As it stands, your statement makes no sense because you are stating something along the lines of: the process of natural selection is the mechanism behind the scientific theory of evolution. That's non-sensical! The theory must contain the mechanism, and that theory is natural selection. Evolution is the process. Nice try though.UberCryxic 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection is a process, not a theory. After reading the above comments, I think you need to show some citations before I reply again. Nice try, too. Xiner (talk, email) 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural selection was Darwin's attempt at coming to grips with evolution. It is, historically and in every other relevant way, a theory first. But, as I said, it is also a natural process. Citations? I'll use the Origin of Species as my general reference. If you have read it, you should already know what Darwin was talking about. Of particular interest is Chapter VI, titled, quite appropriately, "Difficulties on Theory." But if you are insistent on a quote of some kind, then here is Darwin himself, from that chapter:

Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered: but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

As you can see, Darwin himself treated natural selection as a theory. The word "theory" is found there and in other places throughout the book. There is no doubt that Darwin himself knew the difference between what he was proposing (natural selection) and this problem on the "origin of species," ie the problem of "evolution," to use the term that Herbert Spencer coined and that the rest of the world adopted.UberCryxic 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)