Talk:Evolution/Archive 56

I'm not familiar enough with this article to know whether this information is worth including (here or in a daughter article), so instead of being bold, I'll just mention it here and let others decide. It's a recent example of evolution in which the specific mutation involved has been identified. This is what I added to the Microgadus tomcod article:

After General Electric dumped polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Hudson River from 1947 through 1976, tomcod living in the river were found to have evolved an increased resistance to the compound's toxic effects.^[14] Scientists identified the genetic mutation that conferred the resistance, and found that the mutated form was present in 99 per cent of the tomcods in the river, compared to fewer than 10 percent of the tomcods from other waters.^[14]

1. [1]

   Gavrilets S (2003). "Perspective: models of speciation: what have we learned in 40 years?". Evolution. 57 (10): 2197–215. doi:10.1554/02-727. PMID 14628909. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
2. [2]

   Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.
3. [3]

   • Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 145–146. ISBN 0-520-23693-9. states "A key factor in Darwin's innovation was what Mayr (1964, 1982) calls 'population thinking' – the transition from seeing species as based on an ideal type to seeing it as a population of distinct individuals. .... Population thinking also represents a transition in 19th century scientific thought noted by John Theodore Merz (1896–1903): the emergence of the statistical mode of explanation designed to cover changes so complex that the behaviour of their individual components cannot be predicted. It is possible to see the rise of Darwinism as the creation of a statistical mode of explanation as opposed to the old Newtonian view of causation based on law (Depew and Weber 1995). We must balance the claim for a direct input from Darwin's social environment against the evidence for a growing awareness that, for science to tackle certain kinds of questions, a new type of explanation based on statistically modeled changes was needed." On p. 147, "Darwin wanted to create a theory based on natural law in the Newtonian tradition, but by the very nature of the problems he addressed he was forced to transform this program by introducing statistical and historical elements into his explanations."
4. [4]

   De Queiroz K (2007). "Species concepts and species delimitation". Syst. Biol. 56 (6): 879–86. doi:10.1080/10635150701701083. PMID 18027281. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
5. [5]

   de Queiroz K (2005). "Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (Suppl 1): 6600–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502030102. PMC 1131873. PMID 15851674. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
6. [6]

   Huelsenbeck, J. P.; Rannala, B. (1997). "Phylogenetic methods come of age: Testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context" (PDF). Science. 276: 227–232. doi:10.1126/science.276.5310.227.
7. [7]

   Felsenstein, J. (1983). "Parsimony in systematics: Biological and statistical issues". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 14: 313–333.
8. [8]

   Fraser C, Alm EJ, Polz MF, Spratt BG, Hanage WP (2009). "The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity". Science. 323 (5915): 741–6. doi:10.1126/science.1159388. PMID 19197054. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. [9]

   Ereshefsky, M. (1992). "Eliminative pluralism". Philosophy of Science. 59 (4): 671–690.
10. [10]

    Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
11. [11]

    Fraser C, Alm EJ, Polz MF, Spratt BG, Hanage WP (2009). "The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity". Science. 323 (5915): 741–6. doi:10.1126/science.1159388. PMID 19197054. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
12. [12]

    Okasha S (2002). "Darwinian Metaphysics: Species And The Question Of Essentialism". Synthese. 131: 191–213. PMC 1131873. PMID 15851674. {{cite journal}}: Text "10.1023/A:1015731831011" ignored (help)
13. [13]

    Sokal RR, Crovello TJ (1970). "The biological species concept: A critical evaluation". The American Naturalist. 104: 127–153. PMC 1131873. PMID 15851674. {{cite journal}}: Text "10.1023/A:1015731831011" ignored (help)
14. [14]

    Welsh, Jennifer (February 17, 2011). "Fish Evolved to Survive GE Toxins in Hudson River". LiveScience. Retrieved 2011-02-19.

JamesMLane t c 19:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This would probably belong over at Evidence of common descent as an example of natural selection. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the list of daughter articles and that possibility occurred to me. This item, however, while it's evidence of natural selection, is not evidence (at least not very direct evidence) of common descent. The creationists who deny evolution would certainly say that tomcods have never been anything but tomcods, regardless of their vulnerability to PCBs. Because that article includes examples of adaptation through natural selection, perhaps the article should be renamed to reflect its broader scope. Anyway, I'll add the tomcods there for lack of a better alternative. JamesMLane t c 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding it there. I agree with you that it is not “common descent” but for the time being, examples of natural selection are included. I personally think the article needs to be renamed back to its old title Evidence of Evolution or something similar being that the article consists of a large amount of examples spanning many different fields of biology. It could also be split up into more than one article if it warrants. It’s a work in progress. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't sound right. This by definition excludes the possibility that asexual creatures could evolve. Jcurious (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. However this is a reminder that in a way what we mean by evolution is different for organisms which reproduce asexually. So a problem remains. If you remove reference to populations you potentially make the definition wrong for animals and plants, because for them we do not normally say evolution is happening when one individual only has a novel mutation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The mutation is for evolution like the atom for chemistry. An iron atom is not a piece of iron. But it is difficult to say how many atoms are needed to make up real metal. When a mutation appears, the frequency for the created allele increases. How much must the frequency change to be counted as real evolution? Evolution is plagued by fuzzy concepts: population, species, gene, trait ... In this article we should try to explain to a rather detailed level how populations evolve and also mention very briefly that the details are different for asexual organisms. --Ettrig (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, but the lead definition needs to be compact and needs to cover the options somehow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Most asexual organisms still display horizontal gene transfer(gene flow). But even Bdelloid rotifers escape Muller's ratchet by gene duplications, which then mutations can alter to new functions. Duplication events seem inevitable no matter the life form-as monozygotic twins even have differences in gene copy number. So Dobzhansky's definition of shifts in gene allele through successive generations would only apply to sexual organims. I guess just a "genetic change" is about as neutral as you can get. The genetic change can of course precede the trait-like drosophila and resistance to pesticides is from a 35,000 year old transposon that finally jumped to generate the trait of surviving the pesticide in the last 200 years. I guess it begs the question when did drosophila "evolve" when they acquired the transposon or when it developed a function? GetAgrippa (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

131.251.142.18 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it can offer up to date definitions of items, incorporating new information and insights quickly. However,one of its weaknesses is that any definition is only as good as its last edit, and the definition of evolution, seems particularly prone to poor, sometimes erroneous explanation. The first line of the current definition illustrates this:

"Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits.[1] Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that result from gene–environment interactions."

This is not even close to being right. Evolutionary history is not about changing proportions of organisms, any more than chemistry is about the changing colours of solutions. A definition of evolution must incorporate variation, heredity and natural selection, to explain speciation and adaptation (descent with modification). Evolution as an observed phenomenon is well understood and fairly straightforward to define; it should not be the subject of constant discussion and interpretation, particularly if it results in erroneous definitions such as the current entry. The reference given for this definition is Futuyma’s excellent book “Evolution” 2005. However in my copy (2005) of this book the definition is as follows:

"Biological evolution is change in the properties of over the course of generations. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. Groups of organisms which we may call populations undergo descent with modification. Populations may become subdivided, so that several populations are derived from a common ancestral population. If different changes transpire in the several populations the populations diverge.”

I have suggested previously that the Wikipedia entry should be based on a standard text book definition of evolution such as this one, and expand from that. Perhaps the moderator(s) for this topic could address this long standing problem.

EMT (Cardiff) 131.251.142.18 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually this opening line has been discussed a lot just recently, and at least some of the concerns you raise were also discussed at that time. I think there were other concerns also, which you maybe have not considered, and of course we have to try to cover all concerns. Anyway, it was not put together randomly. Just a suggestion but if you have time can you please first look over this talk page' recent history and see if that explains the sentence for you? Concerning the word proportions I did not insert it, but keep in mind that species are made up of populations, and do not have one single set of characteristics but rather a set of many possible variants. Furthermore, when speciation occurs this set of characteristics changes in proportions, but not necessarily any other way? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My point about changing colours in chemistry was to address just that point. The changing proportions of various characteristics from one generation to the next does not constitute a definition of evolution, any more than the changing colours of chemical reactions defines chemistry. Note that the proportions of the same population characteristics (e.g. height, weight, size, distribution etc) change from day to day but this is not evolution.

The main issue is that, not only is the current definition a misquote of the Futuyma defintion which it cites, but it is just plain wrong, and whilst there are many interesting and exciting discussion points in Evolution, the definiton of the term should not be one of them.

EMT(Cardiff)131.251.142.18 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One author's formulation, that we may take inspiration from: All the changes that have transformed life on earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today. Neill Campbell, Biology, Glossary, 1996.

Another one: ...Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by the alterations of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon. Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Glossary, 1998.

Yet another one: Genetic changes in populations of organisms through time that lead todifferences among them. Monroe Strickberger, Evolution, Glossary, 2000.

--Ettrig (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would other agree that a change in the proportion between black and white forms of the peppered moth are described as evolution? Does evolution require speciation? I think not. If it does not require speciation, then what would evolution which is not quite speciation look like if not a change in proportions of characteristics in populations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread starts with the claim that the start of the article is not in accordance with Futuyma. Comparing with Futuyma's glossary definition, quoted above, I find that the opposite problem is at hand. It is a case of plagiarizm. --Ettrig (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the wording is different, so putting in quotes would not be right, but it certainly needs to cite the source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The latest change has the effect to say that evolution is only about proportions within populations. This limitation is not correct and not according to the Futuyma quote above, which adds alterations of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics. When individuals die or are born, this changes the proportions within populations. But changes on higher levels also contribute to evolution: when populations and species fork and go extinct. --Ettrig (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Logically speaking both these options seem to me to be covered by the new wording, but I'm open to new ideas. On the other hand I also have doubts that an extinction is a case of evolution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When sentence 3 is taken into account, the text certainly limits evolution to occuring within populations. This is not in accordance with the Futuyma quote above. Your personal doubts have of course very little weight in this discussion, as hahave my personal beliefs. I ask you to see that Futuyma in the quote above uses a very clumsy and elaborate formulation above to make sure that it is understood that evolution can occur above the population level. One extinction is probably not evolution. But individual death and reproduction have both selective and stochastic (drift) causes, so have extinction, speciation and population bifurcation. --Ettrig (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• First of all we obviously do not want to have an elaborate and clumsy sentence. But let's assume we can get the same meaning in a neater way.
• Concerning what the first sentence should say, to address the remark you make: Of course my own opinion could be enough, iff we would have a clear consensus that my opinion is just a summary of mainstream consensus. Was my remark a controversial one compared to the mainstream? I phrased it such a way that I was thinking it might actually be a common opinion.
• If that is not the case, then no problem. But anyway, we do not of course have to limit ourselves to one source. We will find many definitions and they all differ. If we select just one of them as the basis of our opening lines then in fact we are supposed to be quite careful about doing this. If, as I was suggesting, it contains a rather unusual aspect, we should consider whether that is appropriate, especially in the first sentence. For example if it is just a bit unusual, maybe we can keep this point, but discuss it a little later.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As part of the definition, shouldn't we distinguish between macroevolution and microevolution?-- Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, because they are considered to be exactly the same thing. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution is just a little evolution. There's no reason to include either term in the definition. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate..."
• "The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular in the anti-evolution movement, in particular among young Earth creationists..."

In other words, this is not an appropriate place for such spurious "distinctions without difference." See Creation–evolution controversy and Objections to evolution. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I know, macroevolution refers to speciation, which is what most people think of when they say Evolution, i.e., Darwinian evolution, while microevolution is evolution within a given species, e.g., wolves adapting to eat and digest crabs, but they're still wolves. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Only creationists have invented the difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. It doesn't exist in real science. If you want to push a creationist POV, I suggestion creationism. Of course, if you don't have a reliable source, even there you'd be laughed out of the place. LeftCoastMan (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets not bite. :) A. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In reality, speciation occurs as small changes accumulate until members are suitably different for us to call them different "species". This is often a totally arbitrary distinction; in some cases, it's based on separate species not being able to or not choosing to interbreed (although even this criteria is confused by, e.g., ring species), and in other cases it's just because we say so (especially, but not only, in asexual organisms). So the distinction between those two terms in the context you've described is totally arbitrary, and not actually rooted in anything natural. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the length of this article is the new section called Background really justified? It does not in fact appear to mention evolution in any direct way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following Heredity section begins: Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits – particular characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example, eye colour is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype. This is also a trial at providing background concepts needed to understand evolution. I think the new section provides much better understanding of the material that evolution works on. My hope is that the necessary slimming can be achieved by removing less needed introductory text on heredity and variation. --Ettrig (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the section's quality, but the overall article remains very big, and we seem to have side discussions about so many things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The new background section is overkill. I don't think it is necessary. Its presence in the article should be reconsidered. More effort should be expanded on sections directly related to evolution, e.g., macroevolution, multilevel selection, evo-devo, etc. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Previously the article had a lot about heritable traits. Please remove that instead of the proteins. "Heritable traits" is hocus pocus/magic, while proteins and functional RNA is explanation. Early evolutionists had severe problems of understanding because they didn't know about DNA, forget about using DNA as template for proteins. Now when we do understand some of that, evolution follows almost as a necessity. Of course replication is not always correct. Of course that can make the protein slightly different. Of course that means that the organism functions slightly differently. Since DNA is made up of the same nucleotides in all organisms and DNA defines almost everything that we are it is obvious that by successive sequence changes, one form can transmute into another. The difference I'm trying to introduce is not inclusion of background material, it is already there. We can make the task of explaining evolution much simpler if we replace heritable traits and variation of forms with proteins and DNA. We have an enormous advantage compared to Darwin, let's take advantage of this opportunity. --Ettrig (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, I think you are misunderstood what Andrew and I are getting at. It is not a question of whether genes and proteins are important. They are. The question is the amount of space devoted to this material, which is considerable. Such information are already covered in other articles, DNA, proteins, central dogma of biology, etc. They need not be repeated here, especially in 4 paragraphs of detail. Finally, it is a little premature to be inserting such large information into this article without first seeking consensus from the other editors. Again, I'm asking you to take a step back and look at the big picture. We're talking about priorities here. Which is more important to an article on evolution? A section on multilevel selection (as an example) or a section on gene regulation and mitosis? mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add a more modern background description (I didn't write it myself, obviously, but pinched here and there) to replace old style background material. My aim was to remove most of what now is in Heredity. So to me the issue is to have background based on old views of heredity or background based on modern understanding of how DNA is used as a template. As a compromise, I suggest we remove the new background and also most of what is in Heredity. Multi-level selection would be very interesting. I have the book "Genes in Conflict". --Ettrig (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, I too support modernizing the article whenever possible. My only concern is space and devotion to certain topics. Perhaps you could list the areas (paragraphs, sentences) that you think are outdated and needs to be replaced or deleted? Please be careful. I understand you might think that terms such as traits, heredity, etc might be vague or dated, but they are still widely used in the literature [e.g., ). As a suggestion, I also recommend leaving the lead as it is for now. That part is too contentious. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't reduce heritable trait to DNA-RNA-Protein. Some song birds have genetically determined songs, but most learn their songs. This trait is passed on. Human knowledge is passed on like any trait and has influenced our evolution. Further most traits are an emergent property of genes and gene networks interacting with the environment. So really the hocus pocus becomes how does a gene mutation in calmodulin explain the differences in traits of Darwin's finches rather than bone morphogenetic protein or some neural crest homeobox mutation. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no strong consensus for there to be the "background section" in this article. I will remove it from the text for the time being until a consensus is reached. I will also fix the lead definition. As one editor correctly pointed out, it excludes bacteria and viruses. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It also seems at times to be written from the perspective of a proteonomics evangelist ... "With the exception of certain types of RNA, most other biological molecules are relatively inert elements upon which proteins act. Proteins make up half the dry weight of an Escherichia coli cell, whereas other macromolecules such as DNA and RNA make up only 3% and 20%, respectively". Readers might mistakenly draw from this that proteins are the be-all-and-end-all of biology. That's true if you're an infectious prion agent passing on your spatial configuration to an untransformed protein, but the rest of us might view this as putting the cart before the horse. --PLUMBAGO 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That passage is from Protein#Cellular_functions, a good article. I think it gives a very good description of the actual situation. I would be very interested in getting a glimpse of the alternative description. --Ettrig (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DNA, a featured article, says in transcription, when a cell uses the information in a gene, the DNA sequence is copied into a complementary RNA sequence through the attraction between the DNA and the correct RNA nucleotides. Usually, this RNA copy is then used to make a matching protein sequence. --Ettrig (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was really that, for an article on evolution, and not proteins, this text was inappropriate (≠ wrong) and liable to cause confusion. I certainly wouldn't disagree that the bulk of what passes for life on Earth is built of protein, or that there are interesting things going on with this, but just that evolution is more concerned with heritable information. Therefore, an article on evolution should tread carefully to ensure that it doesn't present material that my be misconstrued by a non-technical audience. Anyway, this is all academic as the section has been removed. --PLUMBAGO 09:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a side issue, but if this section is going to stay can I also ask whether it has the right title? Also, unfortunately if it is going to stay I guess it might need to get longer. Right no it does not explain its own link to evolution unless you already know about the subject. (I am still not really sure we have place for it, as I explained at the beginning.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My issue is with the word 'all'. What evidence is there that this is the case? Is it not possible that abiogenesis created several different chains of DNA throughout the early stages of life and that this produced some (albeit a small amount) of lifes diversity? This statement seems to imply that scientists know for sure that only a single abiogenesis event ever occurred. Puppetx (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Abiogenesis for starters, is not the same as evolution. There is a possibility that there have been more than one origins of life on earth, but all organisms that have been observed so far fit with the idea of common ancestry from a single ancestor. Even if scientists discovered two lines of organisms that came from a different origin, the phrase “evolution has produced all the diversity of living organisms” still applies. Evolution, in theory, could apply across any form of life whether it is the known life here on Earth or alien life on Mars. Evolution still produces diversity. This statement doesn’t imply that scientists know for sure that only a single origin occurred because it doesn’t talk about abiogenesis, it is talking about the diversity of life being caused by evolution. This is a fact. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes. He's well aware of what the sentence is supposed to say. What he's saying is that, taken literally, the sentence implies that no process besides evolution ever created any diversity in life. (if all A is B, it follows that no A is not B.) and we don't know that to be true. for instance, abiogenesis is a process that is not evolution and could've been responsible for diversity in life. an A that is not B. Thus the sentence, as worded, is false. Kevin Baas^talk 13:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

When you go back to the root of the tree of life, you find a reticulated network that connects everything. Based on much more than just DNA-sequences, there is no reason to even doubt that there might be something else than evolution playing a role in the diversity on earth. Adding qualifyers is therefore not appropriate.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This passage was introduced to provide some indication of the significance of the subject. We cannot assume that the reader understands that changes in gene frequences has all these life forms as effect. Please suggest another formulation that indicates the width and depth of effects of evolution. Would it be sufficient to replace all with the vast majority of? Can anyone think of something better? --Ettrig (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority would be a falsehood as far as we know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just brainstorming here (without looking at the context), to get things going. Here's a radically different approach:

Though evolution does not examine the origins of life on earth (that is the subject of abiogenesis), it suffices to explain how, overtime, it has come to be so diverse.

This is, at least, a perfectly true and unambiguous statement, that leaves no room for error of understanding. Notice, also, that it lists evolution as a sufficient condition for the diversity, but makes no claim as to whether it is a necessary one. This further underlines that there may be other sources for diversity, without explicitly claiming that there are. Also it is written in a more active voice, which is preferable in writing. Kevin Baas^talk 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Is absolutely on the right track in understanding what I'm trying to communicate. If we simply dropped the 'all' would it still be implied? I like Kevin's proposal but it does seem unnecessary to include what evolution is not (abiogenesis), in the definition of what evolution is. Is it not sufficient to say?:

[evolution] has produced the diversity of known living organisms.

We are then at least qualifying it with the body of scientific knowledge. Puppetx (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, evolution has also produced the diversity of extinct organisms. But more important, there is nothing that even suggests that processes other than evolution has produced diversity. It is therefore not appropriate to try to qualify that. As soon as you have a self-replicating organism, whatever primitive, natural selection, genetic drift and founder effects start playing a role. As the root of the tree is pretty much a reticulated network, there is no evidence for anything besides evolution that might explain the diversity of life at this globe. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually 'the diversity' still seems to imply a singular source. I'm not trying to advocate a significant change here so, how about simply replacing "This process has produced all the diversity of living organisms." to:

This process has produced diversity in living organisms.

or even:

This process is the primary source of diversity in living organisms

Then we are no longer making the claim that we know for sure that it is the only source of diversity. Puppetx (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what other processes have produced diversity? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of things which could have happened, but we have no reason (or sources) to indicate that they have. Our sources indicate that Evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, and that alone is what we can represent. Further, it is important to emphasize and contextualize that notion fully within the text. We can not indicate, or even imply, that any other method could be responsible for diversity without a reliable source indicating as much. As far as I'm aware, we have no such source which passes WP:Weight concerns, so this cannot be a factor in phrasing the sentence.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply. I'm just curious, why is it we can't imply that something else could have created diversity without evidence, but we can imply that nothing else created diversity without evidence? Isn't proving a negative (nothing can create diversity except evolution) harder to prove than a positive (evolution creates diversity)? It just seems to me that if abiogenesis occurred on earth and somewhere else in the universe the odds of that life being identical are quite slim. If it isn't identical than it is diverse. Would this line be changed if abiogenesis were proven and the resulting life included random or sudo random DNA stands? Puppetx (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because that would be nonsense. Current evidence strongly suggests that Abiogenesis occurred three point something billion years ago, and that evolution, i.e., "descent with modification (due to an imperfect copying system)," is what caused, and still is causing biodiversity. Trying to say that GODDIDIT or DESIGNERDIDIT, while simultaneously handwaving away the urgent need to support such a claim with verifiable evidence is unfair, dishonest, and not science.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Puppetx there are lots of different traditional and/or religious explanations about how life began. Many of these are both notable and verifiable and can therefore in Wikipedia in appropriate articles, and with appropriate wording to explain what types of stories these are, but this article is about a mainstream scientific subject and is already quite full. Just out of curiosity do you think that Wikipedia articles about the book of genesis should as a point of principle be made to include mention of every single other type of religious or traditional explanation which disagrees with it? Religious and traditional explanations are different from scientific ones partly because they do not even aim to be convincing. They are just supposed to be accepted. So there the number of variations on the creation of life theme is virtually unlimited. I presume you only want special treatment for one of those?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Goddidit is a red herring here. I don't see where Puppetx implies anything of the sort. If there were multiple instances of abiogenesis on Earth, then some of the existing diversity may come from the disparate lineages, unless they all went extinct but one. Since we know so little about actual abiogenesis, it does not make sense to issue pronouncements one way or the other. Regarding "all" diversity, I do see some ontological hairs being split, so I'll just sit back and watch the rest of the show. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am an atheist. The position of universal common descent is one I defend. I do not disagree that evolution is practically _the_ source of biodiversity. I'm just grasping at the scientific accuracy of this statement. For those in disagreement, can _someone_ provide citation for the claim that abiogenesis can't create "disparate lineages"/diversity, or explain to me how I'm misrepresenting this sentence? This is not a claim I'd like to make/defend in formal debate, specifically because of the criticism I'm bringing up. I would expect to be laughed at if I responded with any of the posts of disagreement so far. Puppetx (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that my suggested wordings are poor, I agree. Which is why I've made this post, to engage the community to come up with a better way of saying it. A way that doesn't claim that we have evidence to present that there is no other source of biodeversity than evolution. Heck, isn't genetically modifying crops is a source of diversity that is not evolution? I swear to the FSM if I get 1 more Poe telling me that "god didn't do it bro"... Puppetx (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@PuppetX, if the word "all" was removed from that sentence, would you be satisfied? That word is not critical and removing it would not make that sentence any less accurate. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to removing that word, because it does change the meaning. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

PupetX, artificial selection and other human induced methods strictly are a form of evolution, just by a specific natural cause, humans. Anyway, as long as we have no evidence for anythimng else than evolution, I think changing the wording is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@mezzaninelounge: Yes, I think removing the word "all" would make the sentence much more defensible.

@Kim van der Linde: Why is the word inherited used so frequently in the definition of evolution? Genetic engineering produces traits that were not inherited, into life that often cannot reproduce? It is life, its traits weren't inherited, it can't produce offspring that would inherit those traits. Are you suggesting we remove the word inherited from the definition of evolution? "the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms." This seems to exclude genetic engineering, especially when the result isn't viable. Puppetx (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all genetically engineered lifeforms are sterile: genetically engineered bacteria are more than capable of passing on their modified traits to their descendants and other bacteria. And many genetically modified crops and livestock are more than capable of reproducing, unless they have been deliberately sterilized. Furthermore, to exclude genetic engineering from Evolution is just quibbling.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the sentence reads, "this process has produced all the diversity of living organisms." At the moment, it is not clear if the term "process" refers to evolution by natural selection, evolution by genetic drift, mutation, or a combination of these processes. That is the critical problem. Based on the sentence that follows it, I'm assuming it refers to evolution in general. So I suggest that the sentence be modified to read:

"Evolution has led to the diversification of living organisms" or "Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms"

If the word "all" is included in that sentence, it would still be correct because we are referring to evolution in general and not a specific process of evolution. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Either of these is satisfactory to me as it removes the burden of proving that there is no other process in the universe that can produce diversity except evolution. Am I wrong in believing that the absence of evidence to the contrary shouldn't be accepted as evidence in favor? Puppetx (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, it is very difficult to find evidence to support explanations that does not in some way involve evolutionary processes. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic/thanks. We are entirely in agreement. =D Puppetx (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in perfect agreement here to. es.p "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I would put it this way: we can not make a claim in the article that we cannot verify, even if it seems extremely unlikely for it to be otherwise. that would just be plain unscientific. (in addition to being contrary to policy. WP:VERIFY) Kevin Baas^talk 14:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Really Evolution "explains" the diversification of all organisms both past and present. Why ignore past life and the geologic and fossil record? Seems to ignore past life. In simple terms what you are really saying is descent with modification (evolution) explains the diveristy of life both past and present. All life has descended from a universal common ancestor-an organism(s) or gene pool that has given rise to all life in a continuum of life from past to present-the tree of life. We shouldn't even be talking about abiogenesis because that is a separate topic and you don't want to confuse the reader. The fact of evolution is the outcome (The tree of life) and the processes of evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the processes (with a dose of chaos such as extinction events) that mechanistically explain how traits change in a population through sucessive generations, adaptations, speciation, and other outcomes of evolution likely occur. Anyways my two cents. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GetAgrippa. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about a sentence in the lead, which does not mention abiogenesis, Given the new wording, there is no need for such mention. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I only briefly mentioned it in my brainstorm version to allude to the fact that abiogenesis -- which is not evolution -- might also have been a source of diversity. But i agree that it doesn't really need to be mentioned. and the most recent suggestion looks fine to me. Kevin Baas^talk 12:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms" looks supportable to me, and is free from clumsy circumlocution. I like it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Daniel...actually, you've stated a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If I were to follow your logic, it would become impossible to be reasonably certain of anything. I don't have evidence that there is an antique teapot floating above the dark side of the moon. And that's sufficient to state there is no evidence. The same in creationism or any other supernatural act. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but most scientists will state that if there is evidence forthcoming, we are willing to review it and possibly change our mind. The biggest problem with that particular logical fallacy is that you end up with the other side making an impossible set of requirements. Like my teapot theory, they would keep changing the rules...oh you can't see the teapot except on the fifth monday of March. Or that it requires a special UV filter. Or it can only be seen by a virgin who has devoted her life to the collection of teapots. The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

@Orangemartin. That is not a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence. How could it be? To suggest that it is would be to make a logical fallacy. See "argument from silence" and "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise." You're right, it is impossible to be absolutely 100% certain of anything. Which is we use a lot of statistics in science. Unlike religious or mythological statements, scientific statements tend to be tentative and are subjected to change. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

@Daniel and Kevin. First, Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence especially when you're looking for evidence. Argument from silence and affirmative conclusion from a negative premise have absolutely nothing to do with my point. And as for Verify...what do you think I am? A noob? Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

@OrangeMartin. It is not. A "nothing" cannot be a "something." Pure and simple. If we were to go by your logic, then radio waves do not exist before Maxwell's equations, which is clearly not the case. They have always existed. Thanks to Maxwell, we were just able to detect them only recently. Again, just because we have not found evidence of something, it doesn't it mean that it doesn't exist or that we have evidence that it doesn't exist. It just means we have not found it or we do not have the technology to detect it. As James Randi said, "you cannot prove a negative." You are right about one thing. Argument from silence and affirmative conclusion from a negative premise are not the points that you were making. They are just the fallacies that you were making. By the way, no one is trying to lecture to you. Also, Kevin's post happens to precede your first post. So please calm down as you are overreacting like a noob. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@OrangeMartin. By the way, this is getting off topic and I believe I have made my point. If you wish to continue with this discussion, then please post your future replies to my talk page. I don't think this has much relevance to the main issue of this talk session. Plus, I doubt the other editors are interested. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of the constantly evolving nature of the Theory of Evolution, and as it is a theory, it ought to be labeled as such throughout the article. Not having the word "theory" preceding it shows an over-sensitivy to the subject, as if it were feared that it would be disproved. Several theories (i.e. theory of gravity) are still labeled such and without issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbraveheart (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ. Evolution is a fact, and you misunderstand what constitutes a theory. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that every time I look at this entry the definition has changed. Once again the current definition is factually incorrect. Characteristics that result from gene-environment interactions are not inherited. Obesity, exercise-induced muscle mass, and accidental trauma are examples of such interactions, none of which are passed on to future generations. Once again there is a sense that this particular entry attracts a great deal of interest. However, the definition of evolution should not be a moveable feast. EMT (Cardiff)131.251.142.18 (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure all people watching this article and working on it agree about the importance, but this first sentence gets a lot of discussion. Obviously the logical point you raise is a bit trickier than you make it out to be. The text does not actually say what you think it says. It does not say that "gene-environment interactions are inherited". It says that "Inherited traits ... result from gene–environment interactions". This sounds correct to me? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The exact sentence is: "Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that result from gene–environment interactions." Which without the modifiers reads: "Inherited traits ................. result from gene–environment interactions." This is incorrect. EMT (Cardiff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.18 (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The characteristics of organisms arising from interactions with the environment are known as "acquired characteristics" and the theory proposing that these are heritable is known as Lamarckism, and is not now considered to be a valid theory of evolution. Whilst discussion on the subject of evolution should of course be encouraged, constant, often inaccurate changes to the basic definition cannot surely be a good thing? EMT (Cardiff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.18 (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

an interesting note on lamarkian evolution: in computer science there is what's called a memetic algorithm - a fairly recent development - which combines traditional genetic algorithms w/online learning such as and adaptive artificial neural net. the result is you get the local search power of online learning and the global search power of genetic algorithm. the synergy of the two make for significantly faster convergence than either alone! (even though it's not an accurate model - it sort of combines nature and nurture into one.) Kevin Baas^talk 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

131.251.142.18 I do not read it that way, although maybe if it can be read that way it should be improved. On the other hand, there are certainly no words saying anything about acquired traits becoming heritable in the text you are criticizing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it can be read any other way. The text says that inherited traits result from gene-environment interactions; in other words gene-environment interactions are the cause of inherited traits. Whether it is mentioned in the text or not, what is described in the article is Lamarckism, and it is a long way from the consensus definition of evolution.

EMT (Cardiff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.18 (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

EMT, what if it was phrased as "Gene-environment interactions can modify the expressions of inherited traits or phenotypes ... ". Would that clear up the misunderstanding? mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The distinction should be made that gene-environment interactions influence the phenotype. The "expression" of inherited traits is influenced by gene-environment interactions. That covers simply lacking an appropriate amino acid to epigenetic influences.OK beat me to it-mezzanine. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of the last comments. The bottom line is that if the second sentence is going to be a definition of "inherited traits" then the phenomenon of "gene-environment interactions" has no place in this sentence (indeed has nothing to do with it). EMT (cardiff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.18 (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about this revision:

"Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics. The phenotypic expression of these traits can be influenced by gene–environment interactions."

mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That is much better. I would add a short phrase on the end of the first sentence as follows: Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. The second sentence is superfluous but is not, at least, incorrect. EMT Cardiff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.18 (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. As for the second sentence, I agree. I'm tempted to remove it but no harm no foul leaving it there either. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does the law of gravity have alternative theories and evolution does not? Overseer19XX (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because there are no scientific alternatives to evolution.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there has been no evidence found to suggest any alternative explanations to evolution. A lot of people don't realize that the scientific community is all ears when it comes to alternative explanations. The only catch is that you need evidence to support the proposed alternative.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As we jokingly say, if you can prove that an alternative to evolution is valid, it is an instant Nobel Prize. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, in fairness, this article does show alternative explanations, such as nearly neutral theory. Of course all accept the basic fact of evolution occurring, in the same way that alternative explanations of gravitation accept the basic fact that gravity occurs. Not sure what's meant by "the law of gravity" as that's a redirect, and of course explanations of gravity aren't as well established as modern evolution theory, but in some ways there's a similarity in there being various refinements of the basic explanation. One thing I notice is that the gravitation article doesn't give any attention to religious views such as intelligent falling, but that's really a matter of religion rather than science. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "law of gravity." There is a theory of gravity. The OP fails to understand that "theory" is equal to fact in science. Furthermore, a theory describes a synthesis of observable phenomena, so it's testable. The theory of Evolution is a fact. The best we could discuss is that there are various mechanisms, maybe more than just genetic drift and natural selection. In the gravity article, the theory of gravity is not under discussion, it exists. What is being discussed are the various theories of relativity, which describe the mechanism of gravity. There are no alternative to evolution. But if there is scientific evidence, I'm sure we would discuss it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi OrangeMarlin, I get your point, but it might not be the best of explanations for those who have trouble understanding it. People really do talk about a "law of gravity". I think the confusion comes from people taking language, messy word-use which has resulted from accidents of human history, as if it is reality. The word use history can in any case be explained: modern science does not actually accept the concept of absolute knowledge, and so "laws of nature", as the term was being newly promoted in Newton's time, are always open to being questioned. A law of nature in modern physics is therefore to be understood as any strong pattern in nature. So there is nothing higher than a theory in modern science, except a better theory, and the question is always concerning how strongly the theory is supported by facts. And looked at this way, evolution is one of the most secure laws or theories modern science has.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is not the validity of evolution, but the lack of alternative theory's. In a religious Creationism wiki there is a link to creation-evolution controversy. I believe that is also valid here as a link and text. This would help bring this wiki in line with NPOV and bring the two into symmetry. Otherwise remove the "scientific part" from the "religion" wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Already here, if anything going beyond NPOV in giving any weight at all to this pseudoscientific religious argument. . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory as it is not based on science but religion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For consideration for inclusion. Mutation resilience allows the fittest, and the not so fit to co-exist. - RoyBoy 03:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's use something from Kurzweil that science illiterate. Instead, I went to the original article. Beardmore RE, Gudelj I, Lipson DA, Hurst LD (2011). "Metabolic trade-offs and the maintenance of the fittest and the flattest". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature09905. PMID 21441905. Retrieved 2011-04-05. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) And do you know what the article said? And do you know what Darwin said? The article says that both fit and "unfit" (and don't think of this as a matter of cardiovascular fitness) exist at the same time. And Darwin never said that only the fittest survive. What Darwin said was that the fittest had the greatest probability of surviving to the next generation. Over thousands of generations, the average genotype of the population will move towards the "fittest." But, it would be naieve to believe that the whole genotype of a population is exactly the same. So why wouldn't the flattest (words of the Nature article) make most sense, since it gives the broadest amount of genotypes to deal with an environment. But the article also says the more complex the organism, the more the tradeoffs between fitness and not so fit become a bad strategy. You see, the article makes sense for bacteria. Not so much mammals. But hey, let's rely on blog posts from the illiterate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation: "Been there, done that with more competent, more reliable sources." Also, laypeople tend to wrongly assume that the "fittest" in "survival of the fittest" always refer to some sort of athletic, herculean, uber-organisms. The definition of "fittest" always changes in relation to the relevant situation and environment.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a obese, but wealthy, friend who gets all the gorgeous girls. Obviously, selection has favored him in some manner. I imagine it's the AMEX card. Critical thinking is a lost skill these days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Really "fittest" or "survival of fit" shouldn't be anywhere in this text-we should be talking about "fitness" and reproductive success. SSpencer coined the term and it always used incorrectly and just creates confusion. Evolution is often a compromise. I remember reading about garter snakes evolving in a sort of arms race with newts that use tetrodotoxin as a defense. The garters have evolved a resistance to withstand doses of TX that would kill a hundred people. The problem is the adaptation has also altered their voltage gated sodium channels and they are slower after eating the toxin. Thus they have slower reflexes, and they are slower after ingesting a TX rich meal- making them more prone to a predator. Tit for tat. GetAgrippa (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the classic evolutionary stories of fitness is sickle cell disease. Even though the disease is obviously disadvantageous, why did it stay around? Because heterozygous genotype confers resistance to malaria. So the less fit genotype is actually more fit. These things don't show that evolution is wrong, it really establishes how robust natural selection is. BTW, with regards to the garter snakes, wouldn't the blood level of tetradotoxin be so high that predators would avoid the snake? Maybe over time predators would start avoiding these slow garter snakes. And nice to see you GetAgrippa...long time! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comic strip version... hat tip. . . dave souza, talk 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dammit Dave....I spit up my coffee! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you are still about Orangemarlin-ole friend. Heterozygote advantage is an excellent example. Interesting note on the garter snakes too. That is just what it is all about-evolution can work in ways that seems illogical or counterintuitive, and in ways we just don't pick up on. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the biggest fallacies of creationist logic is that they assume that evolution is predictive. Evolution is filled with unintended consequences that sometimes provides an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage. BTW, if I were a garter snake, I'd stick with mice or something. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping to evolve an Amex card to attract viable mating opportunities as your friend. hee,hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Darwin and that whole generation didn't know anything about inheritance, their ideas about the "fittest" individuals doesn't really have much to do with our modern understanding of selection, which acts on a single genetic locus (modulo linkage). The reproductive fitness of an individual is an agglomeration of all the different fitness effects of all the genes they possess (and how much they worked out/ate/fucked, or whatever), but what leads to successful propagation of a trait is the probabilistic effect across a number of individuals. From this gene-centric perspective, the individual's actual fitness isn't really that important - it's the fold-increase in fitness the gene confers. Graft | talk 22:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add an item in 'See also': http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ There is an explanation for this addition in the webpage itself: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." (index page, frame on the left). There also is a list of the scientists which seems capable of holding the ground against the protection of this entry in Wikipedia (at the time of this edition the link to the list was http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660).

I kindly ask for a reply to my request (a.kazimierz@interia.pl)

A.Kazimierz (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's already covered in the #Social and cultural responses section, to meet WP:WEIGHT policy this overview of the science does not give attention to specific creationist religious claims such as the dissent from Darwinism petition which are covered, in majority expert view context, in their own articles. . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting list of scientists who don't support evolution. But the AIDS article supports HIV as the cause of AIDS-as the vast majority of scientist support that argument. There is no mention of the Duesberg hypothesis which is supported by a minority of scientist. Similar problem here. The vast majority support evoution and the literature has few peer reviewed exceptions. If the list of scientist are "capable of holding the ground" then they are welcome to contribute. After all this is an anybody can contribute. The article isn't protected but there are numerous editors (many experts in evolution) that you have to be "capable of holding the ground" against with peer reviewed support and arguments with merit. A list of scientist who are "skeptical" is just anectdotal opinion without sound evidence and arguments-it doesn't matter their occupaton. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "scientists" on the list aren't real scientists. Some are engineers (which isn't a natural science, it's an applied science), some have really bogus degrees, and some are physicians (same point as engineers). Don't be too impressed. Don't forget Project Steve. MastCell (talk · contribs) once wrote that sometimes scientists get involved in fields outside of their training and research, and they tend to be arrogant in their beliefs. Like Jane Goodall stating that Sasquatch actually exists. Or the AIDS denialists. And as I always say, science isn't a democracy with a "vote". But if it were, the creationist "scientists" would be a tiny little minority. Oh, they are. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I understand, polls indicate the majority of Christians don't really have a problem with evolution-nor Judaism or Islam. What drives the skepticism? It is difficult to deny the Morphologic (fossil, comparative anatomy), Biochemical,Genetic, Behavioral evidence. Now if you ask are there unresolved issues, well of course, science is a process. Protist still remain a paraphyletic enigma. China keeps finding weird fossils from Archean and Protozeroic era that are difficult to classify. Lots of arguments between anthropologist over this and that. But that is the process of science. Evolution is still the glue of all biology and medicine, and relays the story of life on our planet. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

One point, I had to say, was that the article refers to Creationism as 'The Creation Myth', now while I'm not trying to start a debate here, I was just wanting to point out that saying that is a non-neutral approach, because there IS proof for Creationism, so labeling it a 'myth' is a bias. Please don't ban me, I'm just trying to help.Xirandraymur (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If there was evidence for a literal interpretation of the King James' translation of the Bible, people would have seen and documented such evidence already. Plus, Wikipedia is not neutral, it is biased towards documented, verified evidence. Furthermore, no one here has any intention of banning you, given as how you do not appear to be intending to vandalize the page.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I suppose. I just have this Creationist friend, and he was like 'you guys haven't found any of the missing links yet'. We have found those, right?Xirandraymur (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, missing links have been found. It is a misnomer to refer to them as missing links for this reason - they are no longer missing. It might also interest you to know that the proper defenition of a myth is basically a supernatural story often having to do with the origins of a people or religion that may or may not be true. No implication of truth or falsehood is implied by the use of "myth."Farsight001 (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You can read more about creationist claims and scientific responses to these at Creation-evolution controversy.--Charles (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mr Fink and others. Wikipedia aims to be neutral, but it also has other policies such as verifiability. What we produce should meet both specifications and is not neutral in any absolute sense. Verifiability "biases" us towards mainstream published works in all fields, and it does not give us much room for giving special sensitivity to myths, except to describe them when they are notable and verifiable. If we started having to accept all possible explanations anyone can come up with for everything then obviously this would include a lot of myths, and not just Christian ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Creationists do have evidence for their claims. Example: The Institute for Creation Research puts out tons by the way of evidence, such as The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. And besides, the theory of macroevolution through natural selection isn't verifiable, because it takes too long to conduct an experiment of it. --Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with everyone that creationism is a myth. At the same time however, the term is quite provocative. WP list the Genesis Creation Myth as the Genesis creation narrative. I have no preference either way, but I would add that calling it a narrative and not a myth does not in any way imply that it is true. It just means that the myth is a story. My two cents. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So what missing links have been found? I'm still a little fuzzy on that. 174.70.43.177 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple starting points for you, Evidence of common descent and Transitional fossil. — raekyt 16:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good resource: http://tolweb.org/tree/ thx1138 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with OP. I understand that Wikipedia is all about documented, verified evidence, but those who believe the "Creation Myth" (myself included) believe there is plenty of that in support of Creation. I'm not here to argue against evolution or the data contained in the article, simply to say that "myth" is a subjective term and should be replaced by something more neutral, like "story" or "account", to better reflect the on going debate between the two. Especially since the article that the link redirects to is called "Genesis Creation Narrative", not myth. 71.170.115.107 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do elaborate on this evidence you speak of, and Mary appearing in toast doesn't count... — raekyt 03:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for a debate between individuals. If this is relevant to Wikipedia then mainstream biology needs to treat it that way. It does not matter what we believe as individuals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to refer to it as the "creation myth" on the evolution page because that's how biologists view it, then I guess we can refer to it as the "evolution myth" on the Creation page since that's how Christians view it... 129.107.237.4 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we can not, as that would be lending undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. Unless you want us to also do things like refer to the "Holocaust Myth" or the "Slavery Myth" or the "Vaccination Myth" Until then, please stop soapboxing.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

@129.107.237.4 That's a red herring. I've never seen a Christian refer to it as the "Evolution myth" and it is certainly not mainstream Christian to reject modern science as wrong. Christians going on a plane trip or getting medical advice show what they really trust to be right about things in "this world" - ie modern science. Creation myth is a general term which is not religion specific. No other general term comes quickly to mind but if someone can think of one, by all means use it. ("Traditional creation stories"?) It is not the aim to insult Christians. Speaking in general and neutral terms is important. It is not to be assumed that Wikipedia editors consider Christianity to be the only religion out there, and obviously when you remember there are many of them it makes more sense that we simply can't write "in universe" in each article about each religion, because all religions agree that all (other) religions are wrong. It is the nature of faith based religions that they will always be insulted by neutrality, and for WP neutrality is an important policy. That is the real cause of the problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Question from a newbie. Why is the term 'genesis creation myth' in this article linked to the 'Genesis Creation narrative' article. Regardless of how you feel about either theory, shouldn't there be an element of uniformity among terms?--Jazzcat23 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no special reason to have uniformity to this extent. A selection of words that sound nice as an article title do not necessarily fit in a running text.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Jazzcat...Evolution is a theory in science, which means it's pretty a fact. Creationism is an invention with no evidence whatsoever. Don't create a false equivalence, because Evolution is real science and creationism is an invention necessary for uneducated Bronze Age goatherders. It's a myth. A fairytale. LeftCoastMan (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition has two definitions for "myth." The first is "a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." The second is "a widely held but false belief or idea." It appears to me that most English-speakers commonly interpret the latter as the most common. Therefore, we should either change the term "myth" to "narrative," "story," or "account" or other related words, or put a footnote saying that "myth" does not necessarily mean that the story is false, and include the first definition. --Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence that says it isn't false, which you don't, then myth stands. It is a widely held false belief. We're done here. LeftCoastMan (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a much proof for Creationism as there is for Evolutionism. There are many scientists and archaeologists that support both theories. The only reason why anyone would call it a myth is if they were intentionally trying to poke it in the face of people who believe in Creationism. If for no other reason, just change the wording to satisfy Creationists as the wording is only relevant to them. This is so WP:Fringe to link to an article and change the name of the actual article in the link just to support your opinion. It shows how immature some people are and it is obvious to me that we should simply call it a narrative like Wikipedia calls it. Why in the world would you not?--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been badly misinformed about creationism. thx1138 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

When the creationists can provide peer reviewed scientific evidence for their claims, then wikipedia and its editors will be more than happy to change the relevant articles. Can any of the creationists please provide a link to a peer reviewed study from a reliable source that provides *real* evidence? Thought so. That is why this article reads the way it does; yes it's biased...towards those claims that are backed by EVIDENCE SuperAtheist (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You "believe" there is evidence? Either there is or there isn't. The irrefutable fact remains that there is no objective, verifiable evidence for creationism. None whatsoever. The fact that somebody wrote a book about it is NOT evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.145 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems "a book says it" and "empirically obvious" is a similar argument for both sides-just antithetical. But offering an argument "just because I say it so" is bizarre, also ad hominems aren't an argument at all. Seems juvenile and illogical. So I presume you believe in little snow fairies or some other supernatural phenomenon is responsible for each unique snowflake? All kinds of self assembling and spontaineously assembling molecules with beautiful order like buckyballs. But just ignore that I guess. Your argument is that because I'm too lazy to "seek and ye shall find" to try and understand and explore the universe I'll just duck the issue by evoking supernatural means. Even the Moses frog plaque is not really a supernatural event because there are numerous documented cases of raining frogs and even fish too. And this can be scientifically addressed. Because it wasn't necessarily supernatural doesn't negate the impact and liturgy of the bible story. The bible and science agree on the "bang" and a beginning of universe so I don't understand that argument (seems naive). Read up on Georges Lemaître and you'll see a person of faith promoted the "bang" against all scientific dogma of an infinite and always present universe as he balked to a skeptical Einstein. I agree there is an ordered, beautiful, and an incredible universe but wouldn't your argument be that God planted this drive and desire to understand the atom, life, the universe. Christians believe God allows all these things to occur so wouldn't that generate the argument because evolution exists it is part of God's plan. You can't argue it is "Satan" because Satan has been defeated that is a "dead" argument-chasing rabbits. Right? I don't mean to mock you but wake up dude. Your going in circles. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has taught evolution for over a decade, and used to contribute to this article before deciding I had no more time to argue with every half-informed editor who felt the need to be heard and disrupt the process, I must say that the current organization of this article is probably the worst I have seen it in over 5 years. It is really a shame that a topic of such fundamental scientific importance as evolution cannot be covered in a well-written, well-organized article, and then simply LEFT ALONE for the most part. The wiki process does not MANDATE edits to be made incessantly and eternally -- but instead, due to busybody editors whose pastime it (apparently) is to rewrite and reorganize and revise ad infinitum, with no satisfaction or end in sight, this article itself continuously evolves, but certainly not in a way that has improved it. More than probably any other article I know on Wikipedia, this evolution article resembles a monstrous, creaking ship cobbled together out of sticks and scraps by a bunch of independent hobbyists who know precious little about boat-building. And every time I check in to peek at it again -- usually wincing -- the re-arrangement of sticks and scraps is different, but it is still a sinking ship. Too many cooks spoil: everything. It is unfortunate that every good editing effort that ever improves this article will surely, eventually, get washed away by deleterious mutations... 218.248.64.164 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This translates into two words "I'm disappointed". Talk pages are meant for constructive suggestions. Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. The constructive suggestion is: it IS possible for an article to be of high quality, and not NEED many more frequent revisions. I suggest that this editing group work toward that goal, rather than using the article as an editors' playground. I offer this suggestion as someone who, at one time, spent a lot of constructive time with other knowledgeable editors here going through the arduous, tedious process of consensus, over many many months, which for a short period of time actually resulted in an article that was not perfect, but had many sections that were accurate, clear, and did not need revision. Now, the article is a tremendous mess again, very clumsily written, with poor organization and no flow whatsoever. I think it is a fair and constructive question -- albeit a difficult one -- to ask: what is the point of working hard and collaboratively to produce a quality article, when it will just eventually get torn apart and rebuilt over and over and over and over again, for no good reason other than the fact that restless editors want something to do? 218.248.64.177 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, most of the contributors to this article have a genuine interest in improving the article in both scope and depth of coverage. Just because an article is FA, doesn't mean it's "done". In fact, the standards for FA have become much more rigorous since 2005; the article has required improvement in order to keep its status as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. If you want an article that is more simple and more like the one that "you wrote" and originally passed FAR in 2005, maybe go to Introduction to Evolution. Perhaps, then, after you're done reading that, you could give us "independent hobbyists" some suggestions to improve the article? Mildly Mad^T_C 14:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I do not doubt that most of the contributors here have a genuine interest in improving the article, and think that they are. The problem is that they eagerly strive to do so even in cases or sections where improvement is not needed. The result is a big, messy sandbox of editing that never reaches a stable equilibrium of quality. "Be Bold" need not be cheerfully encouraged when an article is already of high calibre. Yet it seems that many Wikipedia editors think it's inconceivable that, in fact, a largely-finished article COULD be produced, one that is a good article and does not need frequent rehashing. Instead, there is this never-ending chaotic delusion of "we are improving the article" -- but if you seriously examine perhaps the last 30 MAJOR revisions of the Evolution article, you'd be very hard pressed to objectively describe how it was meaningfully "improved" over the complete course of those revisions. It has not improved, it has simply continued to mutate. When there is no continuity of editing rationale or meaningful quality control, the whole "authorship by consensus process" becomes an unfortunate circular waste of time, because many editors keep editing simply because they want to, and not because their revisions are particularly necessary.

And: before you dismiss my criticism by playing this tired old card, I will be the first to say that "I" did not write the article even in 2005, or before that -- I was only one of many contributors, and I have no attachment to any particular prior version. As a career-long teacher of Evolution (specifically), I do not long for an article that "I" wrote, I long for a stable, good article that is coherent, well-organized, clear, and easy to read for students who depend far too much on Wikipedia. At times (rarely), this article has had fleeting moments of being just that. But then the article is torn down and rebuilt again for no good reason other than someone's personal desire to do so, and again: I say that an examination of the last few dozen MAJOR revisions will show that it has all been a pointless shell-game of shuffling words in response to current whim -- not a meaningful editorial process of improvement. 218.248.64.147 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of great editors have contributed over the years but without doubt it has had little stability. Months of methodical consensus building and some progress, but then every new reader finds fault and wants to change the article with a flash all gone. Usually lots of ranting and raving how the article doesn't reflect "true" evolution and what a piece of crap it is. A methodical study of past contributions would likely yield a treasure trove of great ideas and past incarnations. In fact, I would wager that many of the good ideas will likely have been added and removed a number of times. The article needs a vision statement or some kind of foundation that can't be morphed without considerable effort. Such a rich literature of evolution just the last ten years is an eye opener for the novice. Whether we academics like it or not people really rely on Wikipedia nowadays. I probably get more readers from contributions on Wikipedia articles than all my peer-reviewed publications. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I came to look at this thread on the assumption that someone was making a good suggestion. The anonymous IP is just saying a bunch of words....is there a suggestion in there? I don't think this article is all that bad, considering the way Wikipedia works—fuck the experts, and let anyone with an agenda edit. I don't mind this article. There are lots worse. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, GetAgrippa... I agree, although admittedly I can get pretty angry about it. Evolution is so poorly understood by most nonscientists, so badly misrepresented in culture, so regrettably challenged by the hideous ID movement (which is mainly political and not faith-based)... plus, so many people around the world wrongly think of Wikipedia as a good authoritative source of information... it all (along with the unstable and usually deplorable structure of this article) just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Very very unfortunately, this article is probably the first or only place MANY people will go to read about Evolution, and there is so rarely any clarity here, so rarely a well-structured article that teaches and informs well. There is a huge qualitative difference between peer review and review by anyone and everyone, whether they are scholarly peers or not. As someone who has made an entire career about teaching only evolution, in a number of countries, this Wikipedia article is one of the biggest thorns in my side. I did attempt collaborating as an editor for a long time, but I cannot make monitoring the article part of my daily activities (and of course there are a lot of other quality editors out there -- I do not fancy myself as having the keys to the kingdom -- but I'd venture to say there is an inverse relationship between the quality/knowledge of the editor and the amount of time that editor can spend monitoring the article.)

I only take a little bit of comfort in knowing that my frustrations have been shared by so many other Wikipedia reviewers (see "consensus and hive mind" in the Community of Wikipedia article, and the "Comparative Studies" section under the Reliability of Wikipedia article). Wikipedia is often found to be fairly accurate, but accuracy does not equal skillful writing or a good encyclopedic article if it exists only as a constant haphazard cobbling-together of a bunch of scrap information. I fully agree with my friend Jaron Lanier's opinions on this.... OrangeMarlin, I wish I could cool off and go back to offering enthusiastic, positive suggestions for the article, but knowing that eventually they will just get washed away by the editorial masses unless I guard them like a bulldog, the best suggestions I can offer will be to my own introductory students (around the world) to avoid reading this article. The Wiki model may be fine for writing straightforward articles on simpler topics, but when it comes to producing a quality piece of work about a complex subject like evolution, Wiki just fails miserably by keeping the doors open to everyone. And please don't direct me to the anti-elitist wiki-koolaid about how expert opinions have no more weight on Wikipedia than those of your average citizen. I've heard it all before. Any improvement to the problems I describe can only come from longtime editors who make working on this article part of their daily (or weekly) routine... which I myself am unable to do, mainly because I usually find it to be futile. 117.224.23.194 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a paragraph or two? It's hard to read. And you are confusing the royal crap out of me. You complain about its quality, but then you complain that you don't want to edit. You can't have it both ways. And I completely agree with your comments about experts. On that point alone, I believe Wikipedia will be a passing fad in a couple of years. The difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is negligible. It's just that Conservapedia is a lot more honest about its hatred of intellectualism. Oh, now you've got me going. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, there are no mixed messages here. I have always been willing to help and edit, but never willing to make it a daily/weekly process like you have admirably done for several years here (which I applaud, truly and sincerely). You are one of the ones who could help keep a quality article stable -- I myself do not have the patience to keep fighting for quality and stability, day in and day out. I am apparently one of those rare people around here who thinks that sometimes, an article can reach a state of being well-written and where too many further edits and improvements are neither necessary nor productive. To me that is the whole POINT of editing -- but not here. Here, it is always just a matter of time before eager beaver editors arrive on the scene to tear everything back down without knowing squat about the time, thought, and work that went into it. 117.224.23.194 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I quit for two years, almost to the day. The only reason I returned was I was frustrated when I would read an article that I had edited, and found that people were making a mess of it. So I guess you're right. The worst thing is that the expert editors just quit, because of frustration, academics, or whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To repeat: talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Frankly, I agree that one problem facing WP is hoards of people who insist on editin garticles simply because they can and want to. But in my experience an equally serious problem is people editing talk pages to vent their emotions rather than to improve articles. The anonymous editor has written three articles; the same or another anonymous editor has written three more. The continued comments mean one of two things: first, either the anonymous editor simply wants to vent feelings, which is not what the talk page is for. Second, th anony. editor wants to improve the articl, but is being ineffective. Assuming good faith let's just say that the talk so far has been ineffective. Sugestion: please specify one or even two or three specific problems in the article and explain why they are bad. If you really do know the topic and really do find this article so deficient, it actually should be very easy to provide just one or a few examples. Such suggestions are a better use of the talk page, but that is not my main point - my main point is that concrete exmples will communicate your concerns far more effectively. You would convince other editors who would then appreciate rather than resist your comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I do not see much point in offering specific suggestions that may be incorporated now only to get washed away later. My main criticism is about the poor organization of the article, awkward/bad writing, and lack of flow from concept to concept. It would be very hard for a student to really learn about evolution from this article's jigsaw structure. There are also a number of aspects that are poorly described, and occasionally wrong. If you insist, here are just a few:

-An off-topic description of a relatively minor phenomenon (phenotypic plasticity) only 3 sentences into the article;

-Often equating the concept of variation with the concept of allele frequencies (they are distinct concepts);

-Categorically and repeatedly citing "the two processes" in evolution (by what measure are selection and drift more important evolutionary mechanisms than mutation and gene flow?);

-Apparently using the terms trait and allele interchangeably;

-Erroneously suggesting that speciation can result in more than two species (it has always been modeled as a binary process);

-No mention anywhere in the lead (or even in the top half) about the fundamental "first-principle" fact of common ancestry of all organisms;

-Hardly any substantial or clear, simple use of the word homology anywhere in the article (the concept is HUGE to evolution and merits more than a link);

-Oversimplified childish fantasy example of "inheriting a brown eye trait from one parent" (BOTH parents provide alleles, and eye color is a complex multigene trait, not an either/or situation);

-A second out-of-place sentence that seems to imply that all trait phenotypes are determined by gene-environment interactions, when they're not;

-Confusingly invoking the concept of linkage for the first time with asexual organisms (the concept more properly relates to intergene proximity on chromosomes, as is done later);

-Overall too much focus in the article on sexually reproducing organisms (whereas a vast portion of biodiversity, e.g. prokaryotes, is asexual);

-Beginning the explanation of natural selection by saying it "favors genes" (it does not, it favors phenotypes, and thus only indirectly favors genes)...

And that's all in just the top 1/4th of the article. I am too tired to continue just now, and honestly fail to see the point. As important as the above issues are, I don't want to bicker over them because I consider them to be of secondary importance compared to the article's overall poor organization and lack of stability that results from neverending editorial chaos. Inaccuracies and omissions are much easier to correct than an overall lack of editorial vision and continuity. 117.224.23.194 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever you are, I just want you to know that the list you provided is much appreciated. This is what this article needs. I agree with you that there is a lot in here that is not quite right and could be improved. But the task as you rightly pointed is very daunting. I just hope you don't give up but continue to supply similar lists like the ones above. I will try within a day or two to go through the list and see if we can make appropriate changes to the article. Like you, I too have other more important commitments and will try, whenever I can, to make modest contributions. In the meantime, please keep them (lists of suggestions and criticisms) coming. Oh, if you would like to propose a template or structure for this article, that would be good too. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mezzanine: In principle I like to help out when I can, but depressingly, I know that even when good article changes are implemented in the short term, eventually they always decay back into sloppy, jumbled garbage in the long term. I just don't think the Wiki concept offers any permanence for sound editing decisions, no matter who they come from. Collaborative editing (or collaborative work of any kind) should always have a goal in mind. However, I frankly think the oft-repeated editing goals of "improving this article" are sham. Improvement must always progress toward (or at least stab toward) higher quality. Here, it doesn't; it is an endless process of round-and-round-we-go-again. An encyclopedia article should not be an eternal conversation of back-and-forth and revisions and rehashings, ad infinitum. Articles on complicated topics like evolution suffer especially from that approach. 117.224.23.194 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

117.224.23.194, but what is the alternative? People are always going to come back here. If you're hoping for a solid peer-reviewed article written by experts in the field, then forget it. It will never happen. This is not a scientific journal and we should not pretend that it is. But if you want something that will help lead people, particularly non-experts, to move on to better sources (e.g., peer-reviewed articles), then Wikipedia articles, as imperfect they are, have fulfilled that role. And THAT is all we can hope for in this chaotic wiki environment. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mezzanine, I think perhaps you do not know how Encyclopedias are generally used by readers -- especially students. The vast majority of readers will NEVER go to sources beyond this article, and therefore Wikipedia articles need to be of high quality if we are to serve those readers well. I do not plead for peer-review by experts, I plead simply for stability, a bit more permanence of the work that editors do, and a bit more quality control. 117.224.174.181 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What you're after is to completely change how Wikipedia works, and that's simply not going to happen. This article, even though semi-protected, will always continue to change. Stickee (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

117.224.23.194, I think you misunderstood what I said. I agree we need to serve those readers well. But this article will not approach the level of "stability" or "quality" that you find in peer-reviewed articles. In any event, I'm confused as to what exactly your position is. First you say you don't like this Wikipedia article because it is of poor quality, which leads you to advise your students not to visit article. Now you're saying students are going to visit this article anyway and will perhaps use it. As a result, you suggest that we make improvements to it so that it is of high quality. But yet you would rather not help. You're not giving me much to work with here. If you have criticisms about Wikipedia and this article in general, I agree with them, but other than that, there is nothing I can do about it. So once again, are you going to help us or not? mezzaninelounge (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mezzanine, sum up my position thus: topics as complex as evolution are not well-served by wiki-editing, unless knowledgeable longtime editors who can write well share a vision of getting the article to a high standard where further improvements are rarely needed, and help keep it there through more vigilant vetting of every bold revision. Again, the underlying pathology is not even the quality of the article, it's that no matter what improvements are made, it will only be a matter of time before they get wiki-scrambled back into oblivion. Sorry to be so gloomy about that, it's just been my experience here. The best solution I think is for longtime editors like OrangeMarlin, GetAgrippa, Slrubenstein, dave souza, and a few others like them, to do a bit of archives analysis to examine how the article has changed over the last several years, and see how much of that can truly be called progressive improvement, and how much has just been directionless back-and-forth. I can help a little bit, but I honestly don't have the time to be a regular editor here. But those four (and a few others) seem to, and it seems to me that they are dedicated enough to the article where they, with some effort and help, could collaboratively shape it into a good article and then work a little harder to help prevent major rewrites and reshufflings when they are attempted or proposed. This isn't "owning" the article, it is simply protecting the outcome of consensus when it is reached through hard work. Newer editors who walk-in on a lengthy ongoing process of consensus shouldn't be able to throw a wrench into it so easily and destroy everything that has previously been accomplished by more dedicated editors. Stability of the article can possibly come out of stability of an editorial group, which this article, fortunately, seems to have had. As for whether I am going to help you or not... It is my impression that I already have, and am. 117.224.1.228 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

117.224.1.228, I agree that the four editors that you mentioned should take the lead. But like you and me, they are all very busy, which is why this article right now is in a state of "stasis." So what everyone has been doing at the moment is to remain vigilant and make modest improvements where we can. You seem to have a strong opinion on this issue and a lot on your mind. Rather than express gloom and doom about the lack of stability of this article (which we all agree is the problem) or how its quality will atrophy over time (which we all are trying to prevent), my suggestion is that you channel all your energies into more concrete suggestions/criticisms like the list that you provided above. A list every other day/week perhaps. And if you really want to be helpful, I strongly recommend getting a user I.D. and put this article on your "watchlist." That would go a long well to warning against or preventing unnecessary edits. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

117, in response to my note, provided a very constructive list of defects in the article we can work on. there is no point in discussing how wikipedia works. I suggest that people who actively edit this article raise any objections - if they have any - to anon's suggestions, and otherwise, let's go to work making it a better article! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Anon (AnneED) here. Has there been prior discussion about merging this article with evolutionary biology? I think the rationale given on that article's talk page is very weak.AnneED (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion about this radial phylogenetic tree that is used in a lot of evolution-themed articles here: can it be revised to remove paraphyletic groups such as algae and protozoa? Showing a rough-scale phylogeny that includes "algae" and "protozoa" as taxa belies the fact that they are not phylogenetically valid taxa. AnneED (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

117.224.1.228, I am in the process of trying to incorporate the some of the suggestions/criticisms that you gave. Please bear with the slow process. I'm constrained by time and other duties.

AnneED, that merger idea (evolution and evolutionary biology) sounds reasonable. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I have never been able to figure out how to revert one in a series of edits with Twinkle, so I apologize for doing it this way. Here are my explanations:

• This edit was just poorly written for an encyclopedia. I was trying to slightly rewrite it, before the edit conflicts went crazy, and I just gave up. I don't really care about the edit per se, just that starting a sentence with "What matters is not....." Sounds like a conversation.
• This edit seems to be in contradiction (or at least removing key parts) of the citation itself. The edit summary gives an inadequate explanation of the deletion. And it seems like a big part of the citation was deleted, but I've noticed some new methods of citation hitting Wikipedia, so maybe I'm wrong.
• This edit made no sense to me, but that's not a reason to revert of course. It just got caught up in the edit conflicts and trying to get everything fixed right. Someone who actually understands what's being said (and it's sad that parts of this article are incomprehensible to me, a person with an advanced degree in biochemistry) can unrevert it.

I'm not sure what was being done here. I reverted, which I don't like to do unless I assume bad faith that the editor is pushing a POV, which is clearly not the case here. Just need some help and an explanation from the editor. I really don't get the second edit at all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the first edit above is OR. There are no supporting citations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Joannamasel and you could work on a "rough draft" here first before making direct edits? Could spare the two of you the frustration. My two cents. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about Joannamasel's edits. He/she appears to be fairly competent and not pushing a POV, like "natural selection only works on microevolution with no proof of macroevolution." Hahaha. Of all the edits I've ever reverted on Evolution, this was the least troublesome, because it was more an issue of syntax and citations more than anything else.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Regressive evolution ((loss of pigments and eyes in cave fish) is given as an example of genetic drift. Genetic drift is by definition not directional. An allele under drift is equally likely to increase as to decrease in frequency. If this were genetic drift, such complex phenotypes would be as likely to appear as disappear in the absence of selection. This is not the case. What is really happening here is biased mutations, where more mutations degrade complex traits than create them. In the absence of selection, you get directional, regressive evolution. I would like to delete this example from the genetic drift subsection.Joannamasel (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is any evolution truly "directional" in any sense other than that, after it happens it looks like it was aiming at where it ended up? The directional metaphors, such as the term "selection", and the opposed term "random drift" are so widely used that we can not ignore them of course, but they do lead to misunderstandings also and we need to be careful about that. Professional biologists know what they mean when they use these metaphors, but not all the people who read them and use them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural selection may be at play here, rewarding the individuals that don't waste resources on pigments. If so, the term "regressive" is misleading, as it's just another example of fitness optimization. - Soulkeeper (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whichever way you look at it, this still isn't an example of genetic drift. It may be due to natural selection not to waste resources. "Regressive" refers to ill-defined measures of complexity, and is a whole other can of worms. By "directional", I mean "the direction can be predicted in advance with greater reliability than strictly random sampling odds", which applies to this case and rules out drift, even if the trait is neutral. As a professional theoretical population geneticist, I know that the term "drift" is problematic in many of its common uses. In an article aimed broadly, I think the best strategy is to say relatively little about such a subtle concept, but to make sure that what is said is 100% correct. I have tried to do some more detailed clarification on the genetic drift page, and will continue to do edit that one, but meantime still think this eg should be deleted from the evolution page.Joannamasel (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC) On second thoughts, I think a somewhat larger change is needed on this point. The article talks about only 2 mechanisms of evolution: selection and drift. But mutational bias is also a mechanism, mutation is not merely a source of variation for selection and drift to act upon. Not only does mutational bias it explain many instances of "regressive evolution" (the tendency for complex traits to be lost in the absence of selection), but it also must be invoked to explain phenomena such as GC content and resulting codon bias. Mutation bias also sometimes explains why one rather than a different solution evolves by natural selection. Acknowledging this requires some changes in multiple places in the article. Thoughts? Joannamasel (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could present a draft that includes the changes that you have in mind? That way, folks can have a look and maybe do further edits if necessary? mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very good on the technical side of wikipedia yet. How does one set up a draft, and then how does one reconcile that at the end with what might be conflicting edits in the meantime?Joannamasel (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to set up a page on your user talk? You can watch what I do, and repeat it elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Danielkueh's edits helped in terms of what I thought was most immediately problematically in the article as a whole. Maybe I'll just write a draft copy of a new "mutation bias" section under mechanisms, rather than deal with systematic changes. I'll move the regressive evolution eg to there. But it probably won't happen for a few weeks.Joannamasel (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

if the article only covers selection and mutation than that is a gaping hole; recombination is by far the most important mechanism for asymptotic adaption / optimization. And recombination is definitely not drift, as it's a reductive process whereas drift implies an expansive process. Mutation (drift) simply prevents over-fitting / keeps the variety from getting too small, and it in fact is quite rare (on the order of 1 in a million codons). Kevin Baas^talk 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If for the purpose of the "mechanisms" section, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time, then selection, drift and mutation bias qualify, recombination does not. It stays under the variation section, but not also under mechanisms.128.196.198.191 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Joannamasel, take your time and thanks for the help. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Recombination has an exponential effect on allele frequency, whereas mutation's effect is only linear. That is one of the reasons that it becomes so dominant as a mechanism for adaptation. Kevin Baas^talk 12:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure mutation bias is really in the same boat as selection and drift, here. In this case you're talking about features (say, a gene) that are assiduously maintained by negative selection, and consequently they might have a stronger mutation pressure on them than the background level on the genome as a whole. It might be the case as Joanna suggests that, following their obsolescence, the loss of those genes is due to selection because they take up too many resources; or it might be due to high mutation pressure and those mutations simply drifting to fixation (this might have been the subject of research, and an interested party might want to chase this question down in the literature) - but in either case the mutation bias isn't producing the change. That mutation bias still exists when negative selection is maintaining those traits; it's only the absence of that selection that allows drift (or positive selection) to fix those mutations. Graft | talk 21:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mutation as a subject has been moved from Variation to Mechanisms. While I agree that mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolutionary change, I am not too sure that we need to move it from variation to mechanisms. The current layout gives the impression that mutation is not a source of variation. I prefer the original layout. Thoughts? mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mutation, itself, is not a mechanism of Evolution. In fact, I believe I've read the vast majority (far north of 90%) of mutations are deleterious. Genetic drift is it. If you don't revert the change, I will. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving it. Making that big of a change without discussion is odd at best. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mechanisms paragraph starts The four main mechanisms that produce evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. This makes this paragraph a natural choice for the Mutation paragraph. The problem is that the article tries to discuss Variation before discussing Mechanisms. I guess the cause of this is that Darwin started with variation, stuff that he knew about, while the modern approach is to view evolution as a process. In this perspective variation is a result of the process at work. This is what the article should show. --Ettrig (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we go back to the original layout, whereby we have mutation as a description in the variation section and then a specific description of it as a process (mutation bias) under the mechanism section. This is consistent with most evolution textbooks and it is ok to have some duplicacy. See an example on Evolution 101, hosted by the University of California Berkeley mezzaninelounge (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The linked site describes mechanisms first and then variation (variation as a result (ultimately) of mutation). So should we. Good link! --Ettrig (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong preference. I confess that I am use to Darwin's logic, i.e., describe variation first, and then the mechanism later. Either way, there has to be two separate descriptions. mezzaninelounge (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in twice, although I think the mutation bias section might need some re-working if it is going to serve as the description of mutation under the mechanism heading. Matthew Ackerman (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So it is settled then, describing it twice. On a related topic, does anyone have a preference for the sequence? i.e., Variation, then mechanisms or Mechanisms, then variation. Just looking at the current textbooks out there (e.g., , it appears that the sequence of variation first, then mechanism later is quite common. I personally have no strong preference. I know Ettrig prefers listing mechanisms first, then variation. I just wonder what the rest thinks. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As I was about to restore the mutation text to its original location, I noticed that there is a short text under a subheading called population genetics in the Variation section. This text seems out of place as its main focus is not variation and its causes. Its main focus appears to be how Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is used as a null hypothesis of evolutionary change within a population. This text should either be removed or moved to the mechanism section as a second paragraph (not necessary). Thoughts? mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardy-Weinberg does seem out of place, as the absence of evolution. Does it need to be in this article at all? My vote would be to delete that paragraph, not that I have anything against the current paragraph per se, it's just not really about evolution. Also, for the ordering, I am not super-fussed, but knowledge has come a long way since Darwin and I don't think he automatically needs to be our guide here. I would vote either for mechanisms then variation, or for a super-brief variation summary, then mechanisms, then more detailed issues of variation like sex and recombination. I am not fond of the complex variation content then mechanisms.Joannamasel (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Joanna, I agree that we should just delete that text. As for a super brief variation version of mutation, do you have a short text in mind? My suggestion would be to move paragraphs 3 and 4 to the variation section but keep the rest in the mechanisms section. Also, I think we should just remove much of the content in paragraphs 1 and 2. Much of that info is just overkill. It may be appropriate for an article on mutation but not so for an article on evolution. After that, we can switch the positions of the mechanisms and variation sections as you and Ettrig suggest. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would just write something new for the superbrief version. Basically preface the mechanisms section and/or lead with the proviso that change in a population from one type to another can't happen unless variation between individuals exists, such that there is more than one type. And that mutation i.e. changes in DNA sequence during replication, are generally the original cause of this variation. I agree that much of the current mutation section is overkill and can be cut back. We should focus on what mutation means for a basic understanding of evolution. Oh, and one more thought on Hardy-Weinberg. I think it can go under variation just fine IF it is rewritten to focus on the contrast between blending and Mendelian inheritance, and why would be insufficient variation maintained under blending inheritance, a problem that Hardy-Weinberg solves. This is the historical role for H-W anyway.Joannamasel (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's start with the text for the variation section. Have a look at the following proposed draft. It is a slightly altered version of the first paragraph of the original mutation text in the article. I am proposing this text for the variation section.

Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms, which produces genetic variation in a population. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome, which can be caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.^[1][2][3] When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.^[4]

I see what you're saying about keeping and modifying the Hardy-Weinberg text for historical reasons. Although I am not opposed to the idea, I do think keeping the text or a variant of it makes the article unnecessarily lengthy. This article as a whole could use some trimming. We've been talking for a while now on introducing new and important topics such as multilevel selection and cladogenesis, etc into this article but have yet to find much room for it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree both with the text replacement suggestion and with the suggested removal of H-W. Joannas suggested rewrite can be added when someone comes around to write it. --Ettrig (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the H-W paragraph as I proposed, and no longer support deleting it right now, especially in the middle of a proposed/ongoing restructuring. Although I would be open to deleting it later as part of a largescale effort to reduce the total length of the article.Joannamasel (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in an edit war with OrangeMarlin over two issues. Could the rest of you please weigh in on these?

First, some edits I made to the paragraph on Hardy-Weinberg. My view is firstly that these edits were necessary to make Hardy-Weinberg relevant to the evolution article in general and the variation in particular. The article is about evolution, not lack thereof. Second, I closely followed the historical material given in Ewens' monograph. OrangeMarlin has complained that these changes should have first been discussed on the talk page (which they in fact were, in the context of deleting the paragraph). OrangeMarlin also claimed that these changes constitute an original synthesis. I maintain that they closely follow Ewens text. Can someone please adjudicate this?

Second, since there was already a section on online lectures featuring one by Sean Carroll, I posted a link to a lecture of my own. This was a public lecture as part of a series hosted by the College of Science at the University of Arizona, with attendance of many hundreds of people, many turned away after the overflow room filled up. It received local press coverage. It was later broadcast on youtube and this is what I linked to. OrangeMarlin claimed that one cannot link to youtube, so I linked to a different recording of a similar lecture in the Maggie & Nick DeWolf Series in Aspen, available online through its broadcast on the local TV station. This also received local press coverage, including a TV interview.

I give these lectures quite often to explain the basics of evolution to the general public, and regularly give modified versions as part of K-12 teacher development on the topic of evolution. These lectures consistently receive rave reviews. I believe that the lecture makes a great and accessible introduction to evolution, and this is why I posted it. I originally posted the youtube version because it has a shorter introduction, and because youtube runs smoothly on most devices.

OrangeMarlin's complains that neither I nor the lecture are "notable". I do not see where in the rules it is required that I be a notable person, nor what the criteria are for the lecture itself to be notable, and hence allowable. OrangeMarlin has also referred to it as LINKSPAM. I have no financial interests to promote here. I do not charge a speaker fee when I give these lectures, which I view as part of the outreach component of my profession.

My understanding is that self-citations are not automatically improper when the editor is an expert. The criterion here is expert, which I think I easily fulfil, not notable. But that one should always defer to the consensus judgement of the community on a case by case basis, which I am happy to do. Could someone please also adjudicate this one? Either by clarifying the relevant rules, or by commenting on the relevance of the video itself (the latter only after watching it, please).Joannamasel (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the edits on H-D equilibrium do not violate any known Wikipedia policy and is uncontroversial. If anything, I would prefer that the entire paragraph be deleted. Nevertheless, the recent edits are an improvement over the existing one, which is completely out of place in a section that focuses on variation. See discussion above.

As for the video, I personally have no problems against it (I did watch it). Although it does not technically violate any Wikipedia rules, I suspect there are editors who might feel uncomfortable with it only because it might be perceived as self-promotion or lacking notability/authority. I will leave this to the other editors. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the video adds much by way of extra information and it is self promotion.Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable video placed purely for self-promotion by the non-notable lecturer. It's deleted. Fuck the world. As for the edits, again, we seem to rely upon opinion rather than anything else. The appropriate Wikipedia guideline is WP:BRD. The longstanding edits stay until there is a strong consensus for change. However, I do agree with deleting the whole thing. Joanna...you really need to review WP guidelines. But I actually don't give a shit if you do or not, purely your choice or not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion about the video. I do recall that WP's standards for formatting articles has changed a lot, but we used to make a distinction between works cited to support diferent propositions, and a section of recommended or related work interested readers could look at. I think this is a valuable distinction, and we generally have much looser standards for what goes into "for further reading" section than we do for reliable sources. As for mutation being a mechanism, I think we must follow the sources. If reliable sources represent the view that mutations can act as a mechanism of evolution, we should say so. Often times edit wars occur because edits do not povide appropriate context, and this may help here. If textbooks do not say that mutations are a mechanism and peer-reviewed articles only started referring to them as mechanisms recently, well, most of us should understand the reason for this. We just need to say so. But if this is a recent trend the distinction between majority/minority/fringe may not be the real issue here and may not help. We may have a view that is not technically fringe, but that is still emerging based on new trends in research and perhaps new technologies and we should explain so. My point is that we should have a way to present emerging trends in research which would not imply that the views are fringe, but that would be proportional, that would not give it undue weight. It sounds to me like an issue here is proporton: should mutation be given equal weight to mutation that it gives to natural selection or drift? Maybe not. Maybe what we should be working on is how to present an emerging trend in the literature that neither presents it as mainstream nor as fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I inserted a qualifier at the beginning of the proposed mutation text for the mechanisms section. Do have a look at both texts and let me know what you think about them. Thanks again for joining in the discussion here. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will not reinsert the video link. But I will restore my H-W edits. Neither in this thread nor the last has OrangeMarlin has defended his position that my text is a original synthesis / POV rather than an accurate summary of the Ewens ref. Meantime mezzaninelounge has described the edits as uncontroversial. I will also delete the legacy refs that I left in the text, in order to make it clearer which ref is being summarised by the text. As for the mutation as mechanism, it seems to me that consensus in favor is growing, and that the current text is inconsistent and must be changed one way or another, but I will leave others to make the call of when to move forward with that. Ditto for the ordering of variation and mechanisms, for which consensus seems less far advanced.Joannamasel (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the general edits of Joannamesel, and think it would be a grave error to oppose them. First, the organization of the article reflects the organization and pedagodgy of most introductory works on evolution. Freeman and Herron's first chapter in Part II of their book, entitled Mechanisms of Evolutionary change is Chapter 4: Mutations and genetic variation, and they open Part II with the following sentences: "Natural selection is not the only process that alters allele frequencies, however. There are three additional evolutionary forces: mutation, migration and genetic drift.", realizing that 'force' and 'mechanisms' are often used interchangeably.

Additionally, this formulation reflects the classic formulation in the field, going back the beginning of the modern synthesis. In his book The genetical theory of natural selection Fisher writes:

“A further hypothetical mechanism, guiding the evolution of the species according to the direction in which mutation are occuring, was suggested by Weisman.” and goes on to discuss the Weismann's somewhat incorrect ideas regarding biased mutation. However, he summarizes the kernal of this mechanism: “...Weismann's view that in the absence of all selection a useless organ might diminish, degenerate, and finally disappear, by the cumulative action of successive mutations, and especially his view that this is the only type of progressive change which could take place by mutations only, without the guidance of Natural Selection, is fully in accordance with modern knowledge of the nature of mutations.” Of course, Fisher goes on to reject the idea that biased mutation directs evolution to any appreciable extent; however, modern theorist do not, nor did all of Fisher's contemporaries.

Finally this leads me to a complaint about the proposed mutation as a mechanism edit: the edit begins with the word 'recently.' However, it was one of the core ideas of the modern synthesis that mutation could change allele frequencies (and hence, was a mechanisms of evolution). Therefore, if our goal is to reflect the traditional view of the field of evolutionary biologist, we must list mutation as a mechanism which is capable, in theory at least, of causing evolutionary change (again, defined as the change in allele frequencies.)

So, if Fisher calls mutation a mechanism of evolutionary change, we must call mutation a mechanism of evolutionary change. Matthew Ackerman (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not, strictly speaking, a recent concept. Lynch 2007 cites Darwin and Muller among the "long been known". However, whether mutation bias is a significant vs insignificant force is a separate question from whether it is a force at all. The latter has long been known, the "recent" is really about the evidence of significance, as documented in the papers cited in the proposed text. At this point in the science, the evidence for the significance of mutation bias is stronger than that for genetic drift (if defined narrowly as sampling error). As for textbook approaches to organising coverage of evolution (rather than the content per se), that can sometimes evolve in its own partially-parallel pedagogical universe. Joannamasel (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm on vacation so I haven't read all the dialogue but I will add my opinion. I find mutation a fact of DNA biology-not a mechanism of evolution (yes a mechanism of variation). We all know that cells possess mechanism to prevent such occurences but they still occur. Recent evidence in plants indicate that some mutations can be reversed-weird but a Science article with no apparent known mechanism. I would argue it as near-neutral molecular evolution. A mutation can occur and remain in a population cryptic for thousands of years and then natural selection act on the mutation to give it significance. Just as the transposon responsible for pesticide resistance in 80% of the worlds population of drosophila has been around thousands of years and only the last 200 years it has gained evolutionary significance. Mutations aren't random as genome seqencing reveals hotspots of mutation in various organisms, and the types of mutations are often restricted by Darwinian mechanisms as a Science article reflects in bacterial mutations and evolution. My opinion is mutations occur and the processes of evolution will determine whether it will ever have evolutionary significance. As far as Hardy-Weinberg, I know many evolutionary biologist seem to belittle HW, but it is a null hypothesis for evolution, and evolution must be testable and falsifiable. Science is a process-which I've been reminded so because of the recent study in humans with low salt diets being just as dangerous for stroke and cardiac arrest as high salt. I personally believe that gene flow as hydridization and HGT are a mechanism of evolution and there is a significant literature to support, but I wouldn't add it to this yet till the literature sorts it out. A good idea will mature and float so patience is a virtue. As I recollect Sewall Wright also argued Genetic drift can produce adaptions with his further theory (which evades my memory at present). But I doubt anyone would add this to the article because of Wright and Gould making such claims. Cheers GetAgrippa (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two semantic/conceptual issues that will always plague this discussion. Unless a philosopher of science has addressed these, I would just go with the most common usage in academic publications by evolutionary scientists, rather than argue out these issues. But, one issue is (1) the word mechanism. Mechanics is a great term for physicists since they study the consistent efects of one force on one object. But by the time Darwin was writing physicits were abandoning Newtonian mechanics for statistical models of the universe and by the time the moden syntheis was developed, physicists were using "mechanics" only in very narrow senses. So maybe the word just is not the best word for evolution; maybe there are very few every-day words that are suitable metaphors for evolutionary biology (think of all the confusion lay-people have in the way they use such key words like "adapt," "fit" and "select," usually getting them completely wrong - some of this is due to their ignorance, some of it is due to evolution trying to explain things for which our language is an ineffective tool. (2) what comprises a complete description of the theory? Theories are meant to be reductive, they are not meant to describe everything, that would defeat the point. So no theory is self-contained, all theories assume certain things, which are essential for the theory to make sense but which are not formally part of the theory. So the question is, is this the case with "mutation?" Variation certainly was part of Darwin's theory, ven though he did not understand the mecahnisms of variation (e.g. mutation). Then again, I have always understood the modern synthesis to involve a synthesis of Gregor and Darwin i.e. incorporating the mechanisms of variation into the theory of evolution, so maybe now mutation is an essential part of the theory. Anyway, I suspect editors who disagree over Joannamasel's edits might really disagree over one of these two matters. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the count so far. We have 6 7 8 editors in favor of updating the current article, with 1 strongly opposed, and the other preferring a wait and see. Consensus? Yes? No? We have consensus. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As I combed through this article again, I noticed that a description of gene flow is missing from the variation section but is listed as one of the sources of variation in the first paragraph of that section. Moreover, with the exception of the first sentence of the second paragraph under gene flow in the mechanisms section, that entire description of gene flow doesn't quite explain how it might function as a mechanism of evolution. It is just not clear. The reason why I brought this up is because there is a fast growing consensus to move the proposed mutation drafts to the variation and mechanisms sections, and I was wondering if we could also clean this bit up as well. I believe it might appropriate to move much of the current gene flow description from the mechanisms section to the variation section, and write a new description of gene flow that clearly explains how it may function as a mechanism of evolutionary change. Finally, I really think we should delete the description of population genetics from the variation section. It is completely out of place, even with the recent improved edits. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with moving gene flow at least primarily to variation. Gene flow changes allele frequencies within demes, does not change overall allele frequencies within a metapopulation, but can change genotype frequencies. The main hypothesis of gene flow as evolutionary mechanism is Sewall Wright's shifting balance, which I just added one sentence on a short while ago. Wright's original model is discredited now, and it's a really difficult subject to summarise in an introductory article. Still, what I propose is that you move the majority of gene flow into the variation section, leaving a little stub in the mechanisms, and I will have a go at a _brief_ exposition of the concepts behind shifting balance. Joannamasel (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but on further reflection, I oppose the complete deletion of population genetics, although I agree it needs a major rewrite. I think it is important to give the evolution = change in allele frequency definition somewhere, it is one of the leading definitions of evolution out there. And the new H-W content is both extremely important to the history of evolutionary thought, and a common so-called-evolutionary topic in introductory biology courses. Those are the two things I would like to leave in, I would be happy to see definitions of populations and gene pools go. I'm happy to try my hand at that rewrite too, but I would like the ordering of mechanisms vs variation to be sorted out first.Joannamasel (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If we don't delete it, at least we should move the H-W model description to the first few paragraphs of the mechanism section. That way, readers would be able to see the connection between the assumptions of the H-W model and the mechanisms of evolution mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder: this article is very big. Over the years many spin-off articles have been created to avoid it getting even bigger. Whenever a subject starts becoming a major diversion we should consider that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, that is a good point. I wonder if it would be better to just collapse all of the descriptions in each section into 2-3 paragraphs rather than having separate subsections like we do now. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a substantial reduction in length, whether via spin-off articles or otherwise. However, I suspect the best way to get there from here is to get the content happy and well-structured in a longer version first with regard to the issues we have been discussing, and after this is done figure out which of all the content in the article it would be best to spin-off / summarise. Joannamasel (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a good spinoff would be a page on "mechanisms of evolution". Slrubenstein is right, there is some intrinsic ambiguity to applying the word "mechanism" to evolution at all, let alone trying to produce a truly definitive lists. On evolutionary biology, we have the sentence "Evolutionary forces include natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, genetic draft, developmental constraints, mutation bias and biogeography": this another, non-contradictory way of slicing the same pie, which could be further elaborated on a spinoff page. Joannamasel (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's wait a bit. So far it looks like the majority are in favor of the update. Give it a few days to the end of this week for any more discussion before making the updates. That way, at least we can be confident that the changes are long lasting and will not be subjected to back and forth reversions. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The abstract in Ruse, M. (2005). Darwin and Mechanism: Metaphor in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 285-302 - might help to clarify some issues about the mechanistic metaphor in evolution. Slrubenstein suggested that "mutation is one of the most important sources of variation, or of the dynamism of variation." There are other sources of variation, novelty, and innovation in evolution that do not rely on mutation that are just as important. Environmental influences and other Eco-Evo-Devo factors. Here's my suggestion for the proposed section on Mutation Bias (I also drew and loaded an image showing transition vs. transversion nucleotide substitution):

The Ruse abstract is nice. But while the material in the other ref is fascinating stuff, I think it is a fringe view that this variation does not rely on variation. Much of the Lynch 2007 article is devoted to placing this claim in the fringe, so at minimum one can see that the view is disputed in the scientific literature. What Lynch and others do not dispute is a role for mutation bias, and they see these other phenomena as interesting examples of mutation bias / developmental bias / developmental constraints (the former term sometimes refers only to genotypes, the latter two explicitly to the phenotypic effects of mutations), including a possible dependence of mutation bias on the environment.Joannamasel (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutation Bias Mutation bias is the different probabilities at the molecular level for different mutations to occur. If two genotypes, for example one with the nucleotide G and another with the nucleotide A in the same position, have the same fitness, but mutation from G to A happens more often than mutation from A to G, then genotypes with A will tend to evolve. If a mutation converts a purine (A or G) for a another purine or a pyrimidine (T or C) for another pyrimidine, these are called transitions. Transversions occur when purines switch for a pyrimidine or vice versa. If mutations were random there would be two times more transversional than transitional mutations. However, transitional changes occur more often than expected by random chance. The genetic code is also redundant with nucleotide subsitutions in third position of a codon having no effect or change of amino acid that is coded (synonymous mutations). Hence, the third position of a codon tends to mutate more commonly than the first or second position whose non-synonymous substitutions would change what amino acid was being coded for .

The problem with this change is that the new examples you give involve forward and reverse mutations with symmetric rates. While these new examples are also mutation biases, they are not a cause of evolutionary change. Unlike the previous example I gave, they have no effect on allele frequencies. So I oppose this change.Joannamasel (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. I score alleles on a daily basis and transversion to transition bias does have an effect on allele frequencies. I disagree with your comment that these nucleotide substitutions are not a cause of evolutionary change - they may not be a cause, but they are examples of evolutionary change on a genetic level. While I have no issue if my changes are accepted or not - the proposed paragraph was very poorly written and filled with errors.Thompsma (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

bias effects are superimposed on other processes. If selection would favor either one out of two mutations, but there is no extra advantage to having both, then the mutation that occurs the most frequently is the one that is most likely to become fixed in a population.[24][25] Mutations leading to the loss of function of a gene are much more common than mutations creating a new, fully-functional gene. Most loss of function mutations are selected against. Selection pressure, however, can vary greatly. Many cave dwelling species, for example, lose their eyesight and pigmentation. Under these circumstances, genes coding for pigments are and eyes tend to mutate more rapidly, because these traits no longer serve their original functional or adaptive utility in the darkness of caves.[26] There are alternative scenarios, however, where functional genes can mutate more rapidly than non-functional genes, such as under times of stress, in the immune-antigen system, or during sexual selection. (needs ref)

Why the deletion? And eyes do not mutate more rapidly in caves. The true technical meaning of random mutation is precisely that this does not occur, eg the Luria-Delbruck experiments. Mutation rates are independent of selection. What happens in caves is simply that there is no longer selection counteracting the everpresent mutation bias favoring loss of complex traits. I oppose this change.Joannamasel (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted because it was a convoluted steaming pile of wooji boogi statements that contribute little to the understanding of mutation bias. You are partially correct about genes coding for eyes in caves mutating more rapidly - there are examples where this has occurred:

• "According to the neutral mutation model, eye genes should be free to gradually accumulate mutations and eventually lose function if they do not have a critical role in other parts of the embryo or adult. However, downregulated genes involved in eye development have been difficult to identify in cavefish (Jeffery 2005). An exception is the aA-crystallin gene, which encodes an anti-apoptotic factor strongly downregulated in the lens of two different cavefish populations (Behrens et al. 1998; Strickler et al. 2007b)."

There are other examples in cave dwelling insects where genes in eye development have increased rates of mutation (e.g., . It was a simplified example and I thought I would bring in the example of the eye. The issue here is that you will always find exceptions - hence, we need more of a synthesis.

• The next part of the mutation bias:

This kind of loss of function can occur either because of mutation bias, or because the function had a cost, and once the benefit of the function disappeared, natural selection leads to the loss. Loss of sporulation ability in a bacterium during laboratory evolution appears to have been caused by mutation bias, rather than natural selection against the cost of maintaining sporulation ability.[27] When there is no selection for loss of function, the speed at which loss evolves depends more on the mutation rate than it does on the effective population size[28], indicating that it is driven more by mutation bias than by genetic drift.

• Can probably be removed. I don't like the either / or statement at the lead, like Gould I'm always leery about ying / yang dualisms in science. I'm also slighly skeptical of the interpretation given from the primary literature that is cited. Someone posted a PNAS article written by Matsatoshi Nei earlier in this discussion. Nei is a phylogenetic theoretician - mind and original author behind MEGA, and wrote some excellent books on evolution. On page 27 of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics he has a figure on mutational bias that could help to simplify this section (which I re-illustrated above). The other problem with the existing text can be seen from this paragraph in Jablonka & Lamb's (2005) book^: 247 - which says something a little contrary to the proposed text on mutation:

"In general, DNA is more likely to change in regions where the chromatin is less condensed and genes are active than it is in more compact regions. That's because in active regions DNA is more accessible to chemical mutagens and to the enzymes involved in repair and recombination...For example, the base cytosine (C) mutates to thymine (T) more frequently when it is methylated than when it is not, and methylated DNA is usually associated with compact chromatin and inactive genes...DNA in the regions where genes are active is more likely to change than that in inactive domains."

Instead of deletion, I propose changing the "either/or" to an "and/or". There is no contradiction between Jablonka's text and the deleted text. Chromatin-driven mutation biases are certainly interesting, and I would support adding them to the text as an additional example, if related back to directional evolutionary change. But this has nothing to do with the loss-of-function bias deletion here, which I oppose.Joannamasel (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just not written very well and it has errors. I would propose to start from scratch. I made the proposed changes late last night and quickly from the top of my head. The paragraph is all over the place. I would suggest building up from the single nucleotide substitution bias and then move into more complex examples. The bit about the mutation rate is wrong - once again, it is contextual - which is the basis behind Ohta's nearly neutral theory (see & ).Thompsma (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that, yet again, that authors are getting trapped in a prescriptive view of evolution, when it is actually contextual and hierarchical. As Jablanka and Lamb (2005) state: "Lineages with DNA sequences that lead to a high mutation rate in the relevant genes survive better than those with less changeable sequences." This leads me to the notion of evolutionary burden - an evo-devo concept which Natsatoshi Nei touched on in the PNAS paper in another context. I'll use notochord for my example. Notochords are in us (humans) and in even tiny sea-squirt urochordates. Why is this morphological feature so conserved through evolutionary history? It is burdened - other adapted traits have evolved off the notochord (e.g., ribs, skulls, and other mesochymal derivatives, including pigmentation) and so it is burdened by these peripheral (autapomorphic) adaptations. Here is Nei's gene version:

This property appears to apply to many different animal phyla, and new species in each phylum are generated by mutational change of GRNs (Gene Regulatory Networks) in the final or near-final stages of development (94, 95). In fact, the evolution of eye spots in the wings of some butterflies or the evolutionary changes of the number and form of body segments in insects and vertebrates have occurred by modification of GRNs in late stages of development (43, 44, 96).

• Mutations occur more frequently in GRNs at the near-final stages of development - because the earlier stages are burdened by the later (introduced by Rupert Riedl - see ). Is there a way to integrate a hierarchical view of evolution? I really think it might help a lot of these debates - it puts things into context and it might help to stop the bickering.Thompsma (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

These are all really interesting points that I am very open to, but there are two issues. One is that for many of these topics, there is not yet scientific consensus. This isn't damning in itself, but especially in the context of a drive to make the evolution article shorter, I think this material would go better on more specialised pages. Suitable existing pages include mutation rate, evolutionary developmental biology, biological constraints and evolvability.Joannamasel (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to wait for scientific consensus - you will be waiting a long time. I've seen that idea pop up in this discussion forum many times over - it is an absurd idea. That's not how science works - science thrives off dispute.Thompsma (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Thompsma for the suggestion. I personally have no problems with it. As long as it is understandable (to anyone with just a high school education), not too wordy, and we can get a consensus to make the updates, then we should be good. You and Joanna should discuss this more (work out the details) as you two are probably most familiar with the literature on this. I'll just be the lazy editor and help with the insertion and deletion of texts. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Any suggestion for writing a quick text on how gene flow functions as a mechanism of evolution? We're trying to fix that as well. Nice diagram by the way, what program did you use? mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have some ideas...I will take some time to think this through a little more. I used Artweaver - a free raster graphics editor.Thompsma (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'm not dead set against the inclusion of text like this; however, I'm general think we should concentrate on the most essential ideas. For instance, I don't think it is necessary to discuss the mechanism of mutation bias (how many people really want to read about 8oxyG on this page?) etcetera. On the topic of canalization and developmental constraints etcetera, I could be convinced they are important enough to include (for instance, I think they are more important than the few sentences that we have on mutation rate equilibrium), but I haven't read over the article in good thorough way to see where they should be included. So, in short, I don't think this is appropriate for the mutation or mutation bias section, but could be added to other parts of the article; but more discussion is necessary. Matthew Ackerman (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Matthew Ackerman - looking at the article the section on mutation bias sticks out like a sore thumb. I jumped in here because I read the proposed paragraph and rolled my eyes, because it didn't make sense. I tried to edit it, but now standing back and looking at the whole article I don't understand why this has been inserted? It seems to me that this is a little project that someone is interested in, but it doesn't fit or isn't integrated very well into the whole article. This classical paper published in 1945 in Science outlines the principals of integrative levels in biology and how I think this article could be better organized. This could serve as the bridge between the Dawkin vs. Gould camp - if you want an oversimplification of the diverse viewpoints. Once again - and I've made this complaint many times over in here - the emphasis is always on the evolution of genes. This is very unfortunate - because you cannot gather an emergent synthesis of the discipline without a hierarchical context. So long as the editors of this article continue to pick their little favorite article on genes and mutations the bickering in here will be a never ending story. I realize this is an ecology textbook, but I think that Figure 1-3 illustrates how the levels of biological organization could be integrated into this article on evolution. This is also the approach that was taken by Dr. Brian Hall in his textbook on evolution. This way the discussion can be parsed and more easily argued in a logically consistent manner.Thompsma (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think it is unnecessary to discuss the molecular mechanisms that causes mutations to be biased in a molecular context, not that it is unnecessary to talk about the fact that the phenotypic effects of mutations generally are biased. Some very general argument about how there are more ways to break a gene then there are ways to make a gene may be appropriate, I just think we should keep out explanations that might help clarify the concept to high level students, but would have little pedagogical utility to lower level students.

On the concept of levels of selection, etc., even though I am a population geneticist working in the Lynch lab, I think it would be entirely appropriate to discuss them. Besides, there are plenty of experimental evolution projects at this point that could provide enough support for an interesting hierarchical section. Matthew Ackerman (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is both continuity and discontinuity in the evolution of the universe; and consideration of one to the exclusion of the other acts to retard the development of biological and sociological sciences.

Thompsma (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd the rally to suddenly embrace mutationism, yet still the resistance to a heirarchial view and the influence of epigenetics (which I too suggested some 4-5 years ago). The literature has just grown in support of these ideas. Why don't we just take a NPOV and present the ideas, then give a consensus paragraph which reflects present thought. I was once told in this article that papers less than 5 years old were too new-well that time has elapsed. Thompsma suggestions embrace a "big picture" view which we should all embrace. Mutations within coding sequence, within regulatory elements, and epimutations all are viable. I think we need a double blind approach as we all have bias. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that. May as well just go all the way. mezzaninelounge (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond epigenetics - this article lacks many of the great evolutionary discoveries that could simplify things for a general audience. Homology is mentioned twice - no mention of Richard Owen in the history section. There is no mention of allometry, heterochrony, ontogeny, and there are four occurrences of the word morphology toward the end that reads more like an afterthought. No mention of ring species either - yet endless pedantic run on sentences filled with mistakes about genetic evolution. Developmental biology is given scant attention - despite its obvious prominence in evolutionary biology. I too have a history in genetics - my thesis was in phylogeography and I still work in a genetics lab since 2004. However, I would think that the article would be improved by starting off in more simple terms using morphology - which is at a level that high school students can grasp and it is also at the level that Darwin worked to originally develop the idea. There are fascinating examples of evolution at a morphological scale - from the adhesive pads of geckos to the scaling of sauropod dinosaurs - the mechanics of life is evolution in action. Yet everyone is focused on the abstract molecular scale where much confusion exists. I wrote the ecology article and placed the history section toward the end - a suggestion for this article as well. The more I look at this article - the more I dislike it. I think it gives a terrible overview of evolution in contrast to the rich history of evolutionary thought. It is surprising that I wrote the ecology article without a single controversy - yet this article is plagued by everyone bickering little points of no significance to the overall picture of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thompsa, hopefully we can streamline this through the use of a spinoff article on "mechanisms of evolution", once consensus is reached. Consensus now is still helpful in figuring out what the main evolution article will eventually just be summarising. I agree that many readers relate more to morphology than genetics. But nor can we leave the genetics out altogether, given its complete centrality to the professional science, encapsulated in the modern synthesis. Joannamasel (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course genetics should be included - the point is that the layout and flow of this article is terrible and it is terrible skewed toward a very narrow genetical view of evolution. It is completely off the mark. Almost no mention of paleontology and phylogenetics is mentioned twice - never explained. Systematics is mentioned once in the lead - nowhere else and never defined. George Gaylord Simpson seems to be an important figure in evolution - no mention of him Tempo and Mode in Evolution was a groundbreaking book in evolution! Only a single mention of Ernst Mayr I count 180 references to genes or genetics!!! Is this an article about evolution or is it an article about genetics? I'm a huge fan of genetics - Sewell Wright, John Avise, Matsatoshi Nei, Alan Templeton, Joseph Felsenstein, Daniel Hartl, Montgomery Slatkin, and even Motoo Kimura are some of my biggest geneticist heroes. I love reading about population genetics, phylogenetics, and the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Coalescence theory is a fascinating pastime. However, I'm certain that even these hard core geneticists would agree that for a general article on evolution this has gone way too far into trying to explain the micro-mechanics of genetic evolution. It is doing a great disservice to such a wonderful idea that evolution is. I've worked in paleontology labs and I can say that some of the most exciting work in evolution is taking place at the morphological level, but you wouldn't have a clue that this is taking place by coming here. I have had a 20 year subscription to the journal evolution and read each issue that comes across my desk - every issue has articles about something other than genes. The most recent issue has 25 articles - three focus on genetics, the others are about group selection, population level phenomena, fitness landscapes, growth, sexual selection, aposematic traits, reproduction, ontogeny, paternity, metapopulations, migration, dispersal, morphometrics, behaviour, and mating. How did this article get so skewed in comparison? Let's start to write about evolution - this is what the article is supposed to be about.Thompsma (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to apply pressure, but can we please finish off the mutation as mechanism description first. Once we have that done, then I think we should take GetAGrippa's suggestion and start revising and updating this entire article from top to bottom by including many of the ideas/fields in evolution that Thompsma has mentioned. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I haven't really read the article from start to finish to make sure that all the cool things that should be included are, but I think it may be appropriate to have a high level discussion of what should be included in the article. There is also an introduction to evolution article that needs to be considered, so that we can make sure that they complement each other. Over the weekend I will work on writing up an outline of what the purpose and content of these articles are. [[Special:Contributions/68.76.210.70|68.7

I wrote this in wrong section below so I add here. I think Thompsma is right on center about morphology. Phenotype is exactly what Mendel and Darwin were addressing, and much of the early advances (to the present)are morpological. I remember how logical and obvious evolution became from taking comparative anatomy decades ago, then evo-devo logically follows course extending the same ideas to development. The three-spine stickle back fish supermodel examines phenotypes, genetcs, organismic interactions, and environmental influences. None by themselves is explanatory but all together tell a story. I think this is key to Thompsma's suggestions. I always liked Gould's notion of a bauplan. We need a bauplan to glue everything together. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)