Talk:Evolution/Archive 63

WikiProject Religion

I haven't read through the whole kerfuffle here, but has anyone ever asked WikiProject Religion members if they feel this article is in their scope? Often times these project banners (and their ratings) are added not by project members but by random editors trying to be helpful but who mistakenly think Project="Anything Remotely Related to the Topic". Other times, they're added by bots based on key words in the article. In any case it's rather poor form for non-members to remove a project's banner unless it's so off-base that it was obviously a mistake, e.g. adding the WikiProject Women's History banner to this. That isn't the case here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The categories appear to have been added by John Carter, and I've asked him to clarify his reasons on this talk page. He's taking a short wikibreak just now, but in response to similar tagging of Chaos theory explained that it was based on the the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones having an article of that title, without having reviewed the specific content of the relevant article. He says "I will also look over the articles myself, and see what, if anything, strikes me as being necessary to note in our articles, based on the content of those articles. But, basically, it seems to me that the articles about subjects which have articles in what is probably the best extant reference source on religion are probably of "Top" importance to religion." In the next week or so, he "should be able to offer more substantive comments". It's not clear if he added the creationism categories. . . dave souza, talk 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have assessed the article for that project when adding the Religion banner, but I do not remember specifically adding the banner. I think it was already there. I think. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, John. Did you find time to check that the encyclopedia article refers to biological evolution, and not broader concepts such as social or stellar evolution? In your page listing the encyclopedia articles, you've described it as "Evolution - ambiguous". . . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm virtually certain it isn't stellar evolution, actually. ;) Regarding the individual article, no, it is at a branch library I don't expect to get to until Tuesday at the earliest. And, yeah, I have second-guessed myself on several listings on that page already, not expecting anyone to actually look it over but myself. Does anyone think we could wait until Tuesday or Wednesday for a response? Alternately, virtually every library I've seen (except some branches) has either the Jones or earlier Eliade edition, and if anyone else has them readily available and finds the article is about something else, no objections from me for removing it. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't have the time to read all the responses, but I'll chime in. I don't know the exact rules, but for me if an article has a section that is relevant to a WikiProject, then I add it. The Social_and_cultural_responses section of the article deals with the religious controversy over evolution. That section would fall under WP Religion. So therefore, I think adding this under that WikiProject is valid. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hidden categories

It seems to me that's a perfectly valid criteria for a project to use. Not all projects would broaden their scope to such an extent, but that's up to them. Given that the criteria is well-defined "Encyclopedia of Religion having an article of that title" and that it appears to be being applied across the board. I don't see this as an indication that (a) the project is equating Evolution with Religion or (b) that it intends to start "skewing" the article, any more than does their "Top Importance" banner on Alphabet (also recently added and presumably using the same criteria). Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I found some clear guidance on this issue and it seems that the best recommended practice is to construct the categories as hidden. This does not detract from a projects ability to track the tagged pages in any manor but does preclude them from being displayed to readers of the page unless they enable their preferences to display hidden categories. Category:Hidden categories states, "Categories should be hidden if they are concerned with the maintenance or administration of the Wikipedia project itself, rather than being part of the content of the encyclopedia." Based upon this guidance, I will hide the categories and they will soon be gone from novice sight. I'll post when I am done and you may need to purge your browsers cache to complete their removal. My76Strat (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)  Done

It still shows in the project boxes in the header. Evolution is not a religion nor does it address a religious topic, so it SHOULD NOT be in religious projects. We have plenty of pages that address the religious implication of evolutionary theories but this page is not one of them. I strongly oppose this being in religious projects, hidden or not. STRONGLY. — raekyt 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@ My76Strat. First of all, those guidelines basically refer to article space and maintenance (clean up) categories. More importantly, by doing that you have now hidden Category:FA-Class Religion articles on every single talk page bannered by that project, including all the ones which are obviously key articles for them, e.g. Talk:John Calvin. I don't think that's an appropriate solution at all. In fact, it's highly discriminatory to single one project out for that treatment. This is irrespective of whether that project should banner this talk page in particular. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point is valid, I will reverse the action. My76Strat (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that an RfC should be initiated regarding this topic. And perhaps it should be discussed at some other location. In saying this, I don't mean to imply that we couldn't achieve a consensus here, but rather that I feel the implications are far broader than the scope of this single matter. I am in favor of seeking the broad consensus, as it relates to all WikiProjects. Honestly I fear this will require Arbcom intervention. I am interested who agrees or disagrees on this. My76Strat (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

addendum: I suggest the RfC be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. My76Strat (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be a good idea, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories deals primarily with article categories, not talk page bannering by projects, which generates administrative categories of use to particular projects but not affecting article categorization. This is really a dispute about project bannering. In my view, the best place would be via WP:WikiProject Council. Editors might find this set of guidelines/best practice from the Council useful, particularly this one. Voceditenore (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are very astute and the link you've shown is compelling. Normally it would be sufficient to resolve the matter, but I doubt that it will. My76Strat (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Me again. I started all this. I know there are some good faith posts above, but some are couched in very technical language and are discussing issues that, on the surface, seem completely unconnected with Evolution. And that's our core problem. I still see a list at the bottom of this page that says to most readers (those without deep understanding of Wikipedia's technicalities) that this Evolution article is part of a couple of sets of articles on religion. That is nonsensical. It's a very bad look for Wikipedia. There may be some marvellous technical solution, but I'll just say, as I did in my first post, that I tried to revert the addition of those categories, and was told by Maunus that it doesn't matter what I think. To those who do care even a little about others' opinions, I still think the "categories" as they currently appear are just plain stupid, and make a plea that, until this ideal solution is found, we temporarily remove those "categories". Right now they just look silly. I would do it myself, but have already been told that my opinion doesn't count, and hope for a little support from more rational people who care about how Wikipedia looks to our general readership. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories in general are a way of finding pages, and are not supposed to be a way of labelling them, though they tend to have that side effect. The project banners at the top of this page are hidden unless you click on "show", and so don't have that obvious "bad look" - the box explains how they show projects interested in the article, so doesn't imply the article is about religion. Could something similar be done to collapse the categories at the foot of the page? Preferably with an explanatory heading. . . dave souza, talk 05:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors here have taken the view that they don't want "religion" associated in any way with this topic, even on the talk page via a project banner. Others have expressed the fear that somehow the project banners will encourage religious interference with the article. I find the first view pretty pointless, especially given that the article has a section on "Social and cultural responses" which uses the "R-word". In any case, This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects, doesn't imply anything other than what it says. Re the second view, if editors want to interfere with or slant an article, they don't need a project or a project banner to do it. I don't know if the category list can be collapsed. But it is possible to have note which always appears directly above it. See my experiment below. Feel free to re-word or remove it. (the code for it is at the very top of this page) Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a big improvement. But this whole thing still seems to be arse about. It's fine if religious folk want to get concerned about evolution. One hopes it will do them some good to think down that pathway a little. But evolution is not part of religion, and those "categories" make it look like it is. We could have evolution appearing on the religion pages, but we should not have religion appearing on the evolution page. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is, frankly, arrogant, judgmental, and does nothing to address or improve the article. I very sincerely urge that editor to perhaps read WP:TPG]. It might do him some good to think about conforming his actions to policy a little. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Um... editors interested in religion as an encyclopedic topic are not necessarily "religious". If the problem is the actual titles of these adminstrative categories then renaming all those cats to Category: WikiProject Foo articles is a possible solution, but, like it or not, "banning" a particular project from a particular article talk page is not a possible solution, nor is removing the categorization parameters from their banners. They're there to help projects keep track of articles of interest to them. Incidentally, I'm not a member of any of the projects listed on this page. My areas are WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Women's History. Both those projects have had experience of issues surrounding scope and bannering, although they have been primarily about deciding how to realistically limit our scope and trying to get other editors to stop bannering out-of-scope articles with those projects. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to be understood here? I'm not trying to ban any project from having an interest in any page. I just don't like the stupid Wikipedia mechanism that makes it look like evolution is part of religion. The list at the bottom of this page is STILL titled "Categories". In that list of "categories" is an entry called "FA-Class Religion articles". Irrespective of what that may really mean, it makes it look like this article is in a category called "Religion articles". Apparently it's not (nor should it be), so why do we make it look like it is? HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then, as I said, if it's only the talk page category names you disapprove of, the solution is to request a category re-name to make it clear that it refers to a WikiProject and not the subject in general. WikiProject LGBT studies already has a name like that for their administrative cats: Category:WikiProject LGBT studies articles. I would imagine that one of the reasons for it is that they have in their scope some bio articles whose subjects are not themselves LGBT persons, e.g. Barbra Streisand and want to avoid misinterpretation of the cat by inexperienced editors/readers. The thing is, WP is set up so that you can't remove the categories (whatever they're called) unless you remove the banners which generate them. But doing that without the consent of the projects whose banners you are removing, isn't really on. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You really can't solve this issue with a category rename. The category is generated by {{Template:class mask}} which produces the category as an amalgamation of the articles class rating + the WikiProject name + articles and if the importance parameter is used, importance rating + project name + articles. The template uses the {{SUBPAGENAME}} variable to draw the WikiProject name and essentially would require the Project to change their name in order to change the generated category names. HiLo48 the biggest fallacy you are operating under is the assumption that the article talk page is where you should look to find the categories which represent the article. You must be on the article page to view the article categories. The talk page is an avenue for improving the articles, WikiProjects endeavor to improve articles within their delineated scope, and naturally they use the talk page to facilitate their efforts. The only mechanism that makes you see and interpret what you see are the eyes that have evolved in your head, and whether or not sufficient brain function exists to interpret the data. My76Strat (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the class mask, My76Strat. On closer inspection, Category:WikiProject LGBT studies articles is an additional cat. The ones for their assessments are like those for all other projects, e.g. Category:FA-Class LGBT articles. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the personal attack. I am NOT operating under the assumption that the article talk page is where I should look to find the categories which represent the article! I am describing what Wikipedia seems to be telling me. If that is due to my "inexperience", don't shoot me. If you really think I'm stupid, find the appropriate place to report me for that, and go for it. Most readers of Wikipedia are less experienced than me. It's obvious that it's an idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia that makes things look the way they look. It's certainly not the best way it could work. But then, maybe I'm just stupid.... HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are stupid at all, This is an interesting discussion, and mostly you have carried yourself well. I think you are mocking religious people with comments like this: "It's fine if religious folk want to get concerned about evolution. One hopes it will do them some good to think down that pathway a little" and wondered if the color would look good on you; it does not. I think we both can do better, and that we should. My76Strat (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A minor clarification, having had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism it doesn't seem very active, and a large proportion of those signed up have examined creationism from a scientific viewpoint, as opposed to trying to support creationism. . . dave souza, talk 12:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am very content with this clarification. The same is obviously true for Project:Religion (except its more active, and in a much wider range of topics).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo48. If it's any comfort, I honestly doubt that there will be many "general readers" who will wander all the way down to the cats at the bottom of this page, read them, and then start thinking that evolution is a religion or is about religion. In fact, one of the problems with Wikipedia is that the vast majority of general readers, especially new ones, are unaware of what the "Talk" tab is even for and do not visit the talk page either before or after reading an article. It's too bad, because seeing the Talk page discussions might make them more critical readers of some articles. Ditto with most new editors. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but while the Talk pages continue to contain cryptic, misleading content like that list down the bottom, we're unlikely to attract more enthusiastic participants here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are more interested in having competent, reliable sources for material than "enthusiastic participants," aren't we? FWIW, the entry in the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, is as I have already said the basis for the inclusion of the tag. The article on evolution is broken into three sections, on "The Controversy with Creationism," "Evolutionism," and "Evolutionary Ethics," and runs from pages 2907 through 2920. The first section runs to page 2913. It provides a fairly accurate and lengthy description of Darwin (5 paragraphs), the Darwinian model (5 paragraphs), "The Modern Synthesis: Neo-Darwinism and Twentieth-Century Biology" (5 paragraphs), and encounters between evolution and theology (6 paragarphs). The section on "Evolutionism" also contains quite a bit of material about the development and influences on "evolutionist" thought, is presented in a much more neutral way than some of the comments on this page are, and probably also would be useful in developing and maintaining the article. To the extent that material related to the content of this article, whether certain editors have knee-jerk emotional reactions to the use of the word "religion" or not, I believe that it would offer a useful and valuable point of reference. I also note that it contains a bibliography of about two dozen books. It may also be worth noting that of the three articles sections above, the first was new to the 2005 edition, the "evolutionism" article was substantially revised for the 2005 edition, and the "evolutionary ethics" article was new to the 2005 edition. On that basis, I think it may also include some of the more recent and comparatively up-to-date material on the subject in encyclopedic sources.

And, finally, I am frankly appalled by the arrogant, judgmental, and clearly biased attitude of at least one of the editors above. If anything is likely to detract from the possibility of more enthusiastic editors, or even editors interested in developing the content in an encyclopedic manner, I would think that particular editor may well be number one on the list. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, I see you've added the top-class WikiProject Religion template to both Talk:Evolutionary ethics and Talk:Evolutionism. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy was already rated as high importance to wikiproject religion, but for some reason Talk:Creationism has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
On the basis of your description above, the inclusion of these topics seems entirely appropriate. I remain puzzled as to why the high importance template applies to this overview article, which as a result of consensus from previous discussions has a very short section merely noting that there are social and religious issues. The encylopedia appears to focus on these detailed topics and presumably discusses the science to explain it to [religious] readers. While it may indeed prove a useful source for scientific aspects, that doesn't make the science a top-importance topic to religion . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You will note that the tags are basically added on the basis of existing articles on the subject existing in the ER mentioned above. The list of the article titles is at User:John Carter/Religion articles. Several articles have comparatively ambiguous titles, and I haven't gotten to them yet. The two articles you mentioned are both, as distinct subarticles, included in the list. Creationism may be one, and I'm fairly sure Sabbati Zevi, for instance, is included in the list as well, although I think his name is spelled differently in the ER, which is why I hadn't tagged it yet. There are quite a few such articles in the list page linked to here. But, yeah, I tend to think that, if a topic is considered sufficiently important to have a major article in an encyclopedia on that topic, it is presumably of top importance to the project. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point completely. HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps the esteemed editor above could actually make an attempt to actually indicate what the point actually is? So far as I can see from his own edits, it is that he believes that people who deal with content related to the topic of religion should not deal with this article. That seems to violate WP:OWN, much like several of his own comments earlier seem to indicate WP:POV problems. I provided a detailed, reasonable, response, indicating that editors who work with the topic of religion have a very highly regarded and useful source for this topic. I have also indicated that the tagging is not yet complete by me. Evidently, however, none of that seems to matter to the above editor. Would it perhaps be possible that an editor who has already indicated he has made mistakes might still be doing so? Yes, as anyone who would actually bother to look at the article list I linked to, I haven't yet finished all the review. Is he somehow now indicating that I have no right to do anything until and unless his own particular preferred practices are followed? Let me be honest to the above editor. The only point I have personally seen of his own posts is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If editors have anything of substance to say, as opposed to the basically usless comment above, I would welcome dealing with such reasonable comments instead.

P.S. The only real objection I can see is, basically, an almost paranoic one. I do understand that this page has been regularly "attacked" by religious POV pushers. If certain editors were to actually perhaps read the source before commenting, they would notice that the "religion" encyclopedia not only presents the topic of evolution in a basic neutral tone, it also allocates it a comparatively small section in the article grouping. I'm not sure anyone else has actually decided to look at the source yet, despite its fairly easy availability. Basically, if certain editors would both AGF and maybe actually read what I had written earlier, the encyclopedia in question actually probably serves to reduce the amount of religious material in this article, given the weight issue in it itself. Some reasonable people who are guided by something other than their own biases might come to the conclusion that having a religious source which can be used against the religious POV and UNDUE pushers might be useful. I guess that might be asking too much of some editors though. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If a source is a good source about science, that's because it's a reliable source, whether or not it's a religious source is irrelevant. Where we're describing issues of religion, we use reliable sources that describe it, without worrying whether or not the sources are science based or religious. The religious aspects of this article are a small pointer to topics dealt with in more detailed and specific articles about these aspects, it seems a bit incongruous to make this article Top-importance to religion but then I'm not in that WikiProject. . . dave souza, talk 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you are fucking morons who refuse to make any fucking attemept to understand what others are actually fucking saying. I have absolutely no problem with what topics those interested in religious topics decide are are also of interest to them, including THIS one. My ONLY concern is that your action leads to us having an idiotic list at the bottom of this page that SAYS (even if it's not intended) that this Evolution article is in a category called Religion articles. I know that's not your intention, nor your fault, nor even what it's supposed to mean, but it's fucking happening! That appearance is completely unaceptable to me. (I have now said this many times. DO try a little harder to comprehend this time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And the ONLY argument you have presented for that list of categories being unacceptable to you is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I rather suspect you are right that there are morons around here. I think you might find on staring at you in the mirror. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

True.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I am not opposed to shortening and concision. But I don't think the proposed text by ADC is the best one as it omits critical information. I agree quite a few things can be removed. But each paragraph contains so much information and context, that I think it should be done carefully. For starters, I recommend that we go through one paragraph at a time, starting with the first one. Here is my suggestion:

The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Ancient Greece. For example, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]

danielkueh (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say I do think Daniel is right to ask for careful talkpage discussion for this shortening. (And doing one revert when requesting this is quite normal.) This is also how we have shortened other sections in the past in this article. It should be remembered that this is a heavily worked article already, which has to cover lots of different types of reader and editor interests in this subject. Each section has a big history of debate behind it, and sometimes words have been included to cover misunderstandings or controversies that the article has confronted. No doubt pruning is always still possible but just because one editor does not see the point of something immediately is not necessarily a very convincing reason for major edits on an article that is so intensely watched and edited. So discussion, often very good discussion, on this talkpage has been quite important to the way this article has come to be maintained.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree to some extent with the reasoning for preemptively reverting. Anyways, I don't object to your proposal for the first paragraph, although I'd recommend a rewording to make it clear that Aristotle was actually talking about changes in species over time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more what you mean? Was Aristotle clearly talking about "changes in species"? I think these 3 words are hard to apply to Aristotle in any simple and uncontroversial way, so they would not be the ones we would add in? You have to keep two problems in mind. One is that he saw causation differently than you and I, and so he would not like your wording, because for him a "species" is by definition fixed, and only the expression of individual phenotypes is not. The other is that even translating into different terminologies, I fear he is a little unclear on whether he thinks living types of animals and plants should normally be thought of as expressions of one fixed species each, or whether he thought they were all some type of mixture of different species. FWIW my own feeling is that Aristotle would not see his theories as compatible with Darwin, and he did tend to think most animal and plant types were expressions of one species each, but this is not the end of the discussion because your theories can be compatible with a theory you do not like even if you do not want them to be. Some things that he said do seem compatible, and it is not certain that he ever came to a final conclusion on these matters. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm not sure that Aristotle was talking about changes in species (or as the current version puts it, "the proposal that one type of animal could descend from another"), and I was hoping that if he was it would become clear through Daniel's response. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Daniel can comment but I think he has just attempted to compress based on the logic of the paragraph. Concerning Aristotle there has been a lot of discussion which can be sifted through in the archives of not only this article but also the corresponding History of Evolutionary Thought article. In short, Aristotle had no clear theory of evolution and the argument comes down more to whether he was clearly a supporter of something like "intelligent design" today. He and the other Socratics are certainly a major source of it, and for all types of essentialism, but he is also a major source for lots of other things. It was pointed out by someone, I think User:Dave Souza, that Aristotle makes an isolated comment allowing that new types of living thing can come about through hybridization. This at least raises some doubts to make us hesitate from being too strong in what we say about him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

AcD inadvertently brought up an important point. That current first sentence is potentially troublesome as Aristotle's worldview is different from Darwin's. I suggest we change it as follows: "Prior to Darwin, the prevailing worldview of species was essentialist, which can be traced to Ancient Greece.<ref to Futuyma> For example, ..." danielkueh (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I am not sure about that. I think that this is precisely one of the points which has been discussed a lot in the past, and I think the consensus was that this is also something that is less clear than popular accounts (or accounts of scientists who might not have much time for this historical detail) might have it. Essentialism in general might have been common, but the specific type of essentialism where you say that animal and plant types are more or less pure expressions of metaphysical "species" (Aristotelian formal causes) was not clearly any kind of consensus. That seems to some extent to have actually been a reactionary modern thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, why don't we just skip right to Aristotle. Here is a suggestion: "Prior to Darwin, Greek philosophers such as Aristotle understood all natural things as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species"." danielkueh (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The concern that I have is that is misleading and arguably plain wrong. i know such caricatures abound in potted histories but that does not make them right. Evolutionary theories go back before Aristotle, as do arguments against essentialism. Also, before Darwin, in fact, essentialism was already pretty much dead for centuries due to people like Bacon, who also cited Greeks. And the difficulties about making simple statements about essentialism are a pandora's box.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't understand. Aside from the "Before Darwin," the rest of the text are from the current text. I merely skipped the beginning. danielkueh (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your aims as good ones but I think the changes are big in effect when I consider how a reader will now be informed by us. By removing context, we change the narrative so that we are saying or implying that there was no Greek evolutionary theory, that there was no Greek or even pre-Darwinian opposition or subtility to essentialism, and so everyone before Darwin was more or less a follower of intelligent design in biology. But actually it could even be argued that the type of essentialism in modern biological intelligent design is of about the same modern vintage as modern evolutionism. I am of course a bit biased towards an interest in the history of evolutionary thought, but I would think many people might agree that:

• It would be quite odd that we would delete all mention of the earliest evolutionary proposals, in our section which is about the history of evolution theory. Surely many readers will come here for exactly this?
• It would be just wrong to imply by deletion that everyone before Darwin was an essentialist, with regards to biological species or any type of essentialism. It would also be wrong to say everyone before the modern era was, or that all Greeks were.
• Your proposed deletions remove a reference to the fact that there is doubt about whether Aristotle himself was an essentialist with regards to animal and plant species. That implies that there is no doubt, and helps propagate a simplified story that is widespread. For Aristotle, a species was a type of metaphysical cause within nature, and not a type of animal or plant, and not to point to this will mean we allow people to think that Aristotle's species are definitely known to be the same as modern biological species. I think we have a sort of duty to avoid this common misunderstanding?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't any Greek evolutionary theory, at least in a sense that is meaningful to the concept today. While I know that "evolutionary thought" is much broader, I question its place in a science article beyond a brief mention that some philosophers had previously proposed that species could change. (Why is the section called "History of evolutionary thought" instead of "History of evolution," anyways?) Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I am not questioning that there are subtleties and nuances, but I think in the interest of concision, some things have to give and that we should emphasize the main essentials and direct our readers to the main article on History of evolutionary thought. Otherwise, the current length stays, which is also fine. danielkueh (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

@AdC, yes a brief mention is also what I tend to think is appropriate. Right now we are talking about deleting all mention or not. (I see no point arguing about whether there was a Greek evolutionary theory, but I would say there was. The problem is that we only know about it from surviving criticisms. But they make clear that there was quite some discussion and thought.) @DK, the problem is that removing material can change what we say and make it wrong. You also have not demonstrated in any clear way why there is a major problem that requires this section to be collapsed even at the expense of accuracy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

AdC makes an important point. There is no Greek evolutionary theory. At least not according to mainstream sources. They might have proposed ideas about evolution, but those are different and are not part of a coherent scientific theory. Whether you agree with modern scientific interpretations or not is not the issue. The issue what do the sources say. And the sources are clear, prior to Darwin and others, the Greek worldview was essentialist, which could be traced back to Aristotle. Provide a reliable and world accepted source that explicitly says otherwise, then the issue is resolved. Bear in mind, I have no strong stake here about shortening this section. Either way, I am fine with keeping it the way it is or with shortening it to the bare essentials. So there is no "major problem." This section was initially expanded by Thompsma, who now proposes shortening it. IF the consensus is to shorten it, then of course, I would propose a solution whereby we present information that is often found in reliable sources. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think anyone is suggesting deleting all mention. Also, I said that there was no Greek evolutionary theory in a sense that is meaningful to the concept today. The relevance of Greek philosophy to evolution is no more than that some philosophers thought species could change (as a philosophical position), and it turns out that they do. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• @DK. That the Pre-Socratic Greeks theorized about evolution is according to mainstream sources cited in this article and also the History of Evolutionary Thought article. (It is notable that your proposed compression would remove most of the cited materials and create what I would call a summary of the standard "folk" ideas that scientists have about the history of this subject.) The sources used are the absolute standard in the field of Pre-Socratic studies. You say on the other hands that the opposite position is what is found in mainstream sources, but you give no source. I have my doubts.
• Perhaps more to the point, the real argument in both posts above seems to be that these early thinkers should only be mentioned to the extent that they are a direct and well-known source for modern evolutionary thought. I do not see why. Readers coming to this article will sometimes wish to know whether there was pre-Darwinian evolutionary theorizing, whether it survived or not. What would the reasoning be for dropping a notable and well-studied subject for this type of reason?
• Secondly, it can at least be argued that the Pre-Socratic philosophy did have an influence on modern evolutionary thinking, at least indirectly. Aristotle's arguments against earlier evolutionary ideas did survive and were widely read until Darwin's time. I believe Darwin cites some in his preface? But this is perhaps a less important point.
• Finally I will just return to my most basic concern: there is no clear need to compress, just a post by one person, so we can certainly discuss the possibility, but on the other hand if compression causes less accuracy I think many editors will be concerned. For example if we imply that no evolutionary theory existed before Darwin and the immediately preceding generations, or if we imply that everyone before those times was an essentialist concerning biological species, we will be spreading information which is demonstrably wrong, for the sake of making a section a bit shorter. I do not think that is tenable. Compression is fine, but not at that price.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some mainstream sources at all levels: Futuyma, Evolution; Reece et al., Campbell Biology; Walsh, Evolutionary existentialism. Just to name a few. I think you misunderstood my point. If you have sources describing "descriptions of Aristotle's essentialist worldviews" as being "incorrect" or "folk," then I think you should put them here. None of the sources in this article or in the History of Evolutionary Thought article contest this description. So unless you have sources that explicitly call this description a 'myth, folk, or incorrect," there is no need for us to quibble about this point.

If you don't think this history section should be condensed, then that is fine by me. I will leave you to continue this discussion with AcD and Menn Jess and defend the front-line. :D danielkueh (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't have much time to work on articles right now, so I would just wait to see if anyone objects to the rest of the condensation and then add those changes if not. Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

DK, like AdC I do not have a lot of time right now, but I do know that the point about Aristotle is something that has been discussed a lot before, either on this article or the history of evolutionary thought article, and it was not originally my own position but something which was demonstrated by others using good sources. Furthermore the sources you name are not people who study Aristotle or Pre-Socratic sources as far as I know? But even if they are it is not clear to me that the change of meaning you are promoting in the compression that you propose is based on any sources, as opposed to just what is easier to write and explain - which is how you yourself have explained it. Seems to me that if your aim, as you have explained it until now, is to compress, then the compression should avoid changing the story in important ways. If this is not your aim, then you have not yet explained what your aim is in any clear. Does your mentioning of these sources mean that you now argue that the history section is actually wrong, as opposed to just being a bit long?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew: First, I am not asking you to do anything about the section of the article. If you don't think it should be changed, then we can leave it. But if other editors would like to continue to discuss shortening it, then I'll leave it to you to convince them otherwise as I'm just exhausted. Second, my "compression" doesn't change any story whatsoever. It is the same as the one written by you and Dave Souza. The only difference is that it omits the mention of the presocratic philosophers, which is not central to a small section on the history of evolutionary thought. Plus, the emphasis on Aristotle's essentialist worldview are based on reliable sources, which I've given. Third, you're presenting a moving target. Initially you demanded sources, I gave them. Now you question their credentials. FYI, Denis Walsh (author of one of the sources I gave) happens to be from the Philosophy Department at the University of Toronto. He studies the history and philosophy of science, specifically biology. I think his credentials are perfectly adequate. Anyway, questioning their credentials is dubious and a red herring. I think you forget that this is an article on evolution, not ancient Greek philosophy. Finally, where are your sources? You are the one who is still claiming that the essentialist worldview is incorrect, a myth, or a folk tale. That has never been demonstrated. I have read the arguments on this talk page but I have never seen one single source given to back it up. So until you provide at least one reliable and high quality source, I think this issue should be dropped. danielkueh (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no rush, then my main request is pretty much like yours: let's bring this down to a review of the sources. As mentioned, I was not the key player in the previous discussion and I am struggling to give this discussion the time it deserves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody has made any other objections, I'll wait a couple more days and then re-insert those changes which haven't been contested (right now, that's everything except the first paragraph), and then bring the current section to the talk page. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read my previous posts, you will see that I did contest the changes. I did not provide an exhaustive list as the changes were numerous. Andrew also does not appear to support those changes as well. I strongly suggest that you don't rush this, especially if you want the changes to be long lasting. We haven't even got passed the first paragraph yet. So try again for consensus. In fact, it would really help this discussion if you could post a side by side comparison of the original and proposed versions. See this archive discussion for an example on how to do that. Also, I recommend that you invite long time and familiar editors of this article such as Dave Souza, Thompsma, Joannamasel, Maunus, KimvdLinde, etc to this discussion. danielkueh (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll just stop pursuing this instead. As I said, I'm busy right now, and even if I weren't I'd rather not spend as much discussion time as this seems to take. If the discussion continues, I might make some more comments but only as interjections. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• When time permits, I'd like to review this section with the aim of tightening and focussing it as an overview of the most significant points. Having looked around, Chapter 6 in Bowler, Peter J.; Morus, Iwan Rhys (2005). Making modern science : a historical survey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06861-7. seems a good overview to provide a framework for this section. It's titled "The Darwinian Revolution", but covers the topic widely and doesn't just focus on Darwin's contribution. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

break and call for opinion

Given that no one raised any major objection to the direction the conversation took in recent days, maybe we should call for opinions on this proposal:

• CURRENT: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
• PROPOSED: Evolution in biology refers to change, over successive generations, in the inheritable characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I am ok with either one. Nevertheless, I still prefer the current one, only because it is more concise. If it were me, I would reorder the present lede statement and omit the word "any" as follows:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations."

Regards. danielkueh (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am also OK with either, with only a very slight preference for the current on the grounds of being more concise.Joannamasel (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The current one is better, and the proposal provides no new information. What's the point? Graft | talk 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Evolution, in biology, refers to the modification of heritable traits of organisms within populations over successive generations". It is descent with "modification". Glad to hear from you Graft-long time. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Less wordy is better, imho, so I lean towards the current phrasing. — raekyt 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if simple is the strategy then : "Evolution is the modification of heritable traits within populations through generations". This addresses it isn't just any change but the modification of an ancestral trait to a new derived trait, "within" populations refers to individuals within the population with new derived traits gaining success within the population, and no need to put successive because generations implies succession. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that definition, any first year biology student is taught that Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a breeding population's gene pool, or something very similar to that, and i concede simplifying it to more public friendly terms to get rid of "allele frequency" and "breeding population" and "gene pool" since they're probably not something an average Joe would know, but I don't think "modification of heritable traits" is accurate to the standard most common definition of evolution. What we have now is closest, but not entirely accurate, but close enough for me to be ok with. The further you get away from "Changes in allele frequency in a breeding population" the more I have a problem with it. — raekyt 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well descent with modification and then Dobzhansky's shift in gene alleles and the gene-centric pop genetics definition are popular but that implies that only shifts in gene alleles are responsbile for evolution-wwhich the change can be in noncoding regions and not a shift in gene alleles, it can be epigenetic, and it ignores large genomic duplications and chromosomal differences, and its biased towards diploid sexually reproducing populations and ignores haploid organisms or asexual organisms. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the mechanisms of evolution are complex, but the basic definition taught initially is "change in allele frequency of a breeding population." I think the opening sentence should be basic and as little wording as possible the later details can be explained in the body. Unless there is sources showing that top universities introduce evolution to freshmen as a different definition then that, then I think it would be best to stick with the simple definition for the opening sentence. There are of course other things than coding alleles in variation, but the MAJORITY of an organisms traits are from coding alleles, and then transcription factors in the embryo that it gets from the parents, but the majority is from alleles. Unless there is some new evidence that shows that the vast majority of evolutionary change isn't allele frequency then I would be in favor of straying away from the definition I gave, otherwise we should try to be as close as possible for the opening sentence. — raekyt 03:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the current statement as well, although I agree with Daniel that placing "across successive generations" at the end makes it more readable. I'm undecided about the use of "any;" I'm not yet convinced that it's a mistake, but I think perhaps it is not the best encyclopedic style. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight-the posit is all evolution can be explained by shifts in gene alleles through successive generations? So I guess epistasis and gene interactions and networks have nothing to do with it? And then I guess that vast majority of most genomes (what use to called junk DNA)has nothing to do with development and evolution-it is all in gene alleles so mutations anywhere else have nothing to do with it? Is that what is proposed? GetAgrippa (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I say that? Evolution is the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population. Other factors are at play too, but the MAJORITY of the change is the result of allele frequency changes within the population. Are you proposing that we somehow try to synthesis some convoluted all-encompassing definition that has elements of every mechanism of evolutionary change into one mega-definition of evolution for our opening sentence? All I said is, unless proven otherwise that major universities are teaching a different basic definition of evolution for their freshmen biology majors then we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. I would say any definition would need reliable sources and we shouldn't synthesize our own. — raekyt 12:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting reinventing the wheel that would be original research but just put the correct wheels on! There are all kinds of evolutionary biologist some of which are population geneticist but seems undue weight with just a pop geneticist perspective. The human genome has many genes some with no alleles and some with hundreds of alleles-polymorphisms in populations can be both genetic and environmental. I think shifts in gene alleles is too restrictive and it is the trait and phenotype that interested both Darwin and Mendel. Further comparing humans and chimps it isn't so much gene alleles that makes us different but we have one less chromosome and various transpositions and inversions that are different too-shifts in gene alleles didn't produce these differences. Duplication events of genes, or chromosomes isn't a gene allele shift phenomena. Hybridization can give rise to new species and it is gene flow not gene allele shifts responsible for the new species. In the past I too supported the shifts in gene alleles but now I believe it is too restrictive. The differences in freshwater and saltwater stickleback fish is from mutations in enhancers regulating the gene not any change in the gene itself or alleles (Pitx-1 gene is the same in both just regulated differently). GetAgrippa (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, next suggestion

OK then, based on the responses, I think we need to make a new request for opinions about whether DK's tweak is acceptable to everyone?

• CURRENT: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
• PROPOSED: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.

I think it is a simple and uncontroversial improvement. Do others agree? It seems so from opinions above already registered. But I would like to raise a secondary question which is why the "in biology" was ever removed from this sentence. It used to be there. Is it just obvious that evolution is by default the biological meaning? I personally do not think so, and I do not recall this point ever having been widely agreed. I seem to recall that the change slipped through with some other changes? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed is probably better in this instance, it's just geting rid of "any" and reordering it to read better. I think it obvious that this page is about biological evolution, and not some other use of it. We don't need to play into the creationist hand by their assertion that there is crazy things like "chemical evolution" "cosmological evolution" and all the other "types" of evolution that Kent Hovind brings up in his lectures (now his son Eric does). Do university biology textbooks introduce evolution as biological evolution in their opening remarks? It seems redundant and obvious how it's used here for biology. — raekyt 12:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree that the proposed sentence as you stated it above is grammatically simpler for those who read English as a second language, and it is important to remember those readers. Looking back to the previous discussion, I could see including the word "gradual" in the interest of clarity and accuracy, but either way I think this proposal is an improvement. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• What is with the "biological populations" why not just populations? It seems also redundant to state biological here as well.. — raekyt 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• PROPOSED#2: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.

Raeky stated: "Evolution is the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population. Other factors are at play too, but the MAJORITY of the change is the result of allele frequency changes within the population." - Not only are other factors at play, but a great many evolutionary biologists would and have voiced their disagreement on what has been called the "standard genetic definition" of evolution. Evolution is not the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population - that is just bookkeeping as Stephen J. Gould (and many others) have stated repeatedly. Ernst Mayr, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, and many others have repeatedly voiced their discontent with that kind of definition. None of them deny that allele frequencies change in populations, but they would all argue that this kind of definition is inadequate to provide a causal understanding of evolution. I oppose the latest proposals, because they are indadequate. I am not suggesting that we have a definition that covers cosmic evolution, nor am I even taking the epigenetic stance of GetGrippa, although I am sympathetic to those issues in evolution. I can provide enough literature and reason to demonstrate that "Evolution is not the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations." - This kind of thing happens to organisms in populations. It is not a correct definition of evolution. Once again, populations do not have inheritable traits - organisms (or individuals) do. Evolutionary theory provides a causal mechanism explaining varieties that can be observed and patterns of divergence that can be tested; causal mechanisms involve selection and sorting. Selection and sorting act on the inheritable characterstics of populations across successive generations, but change is insufficient to cover the concept of divergence, speciation, and laws of emergence that have been covered extensively in evolutionary theory. This is why my proposal offers a solution to this problem. I might accept:

• "Evolution refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations."Thompsma (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Theres not much difference between what you just proposed and I did, instead of is you have refers, that is probably ok, but this opening sentence isn't the whole article theres plenty of space to discuss exceptions and divergence of opinions on the definition. You add the word organisms, which I think is redundant since population specifically refers to populations of organisms and evolution doesn't necessarily have to refer to just biologically alive DNA/RNA based organisms that we traditionally think of... so long as it can pass on variable material that can confer advantage and it reproduces it can evolve, doesn't have to be what we traditionally think of as alive. Computer algorithms can be written to evolve clocks for example, or very primitive pre-life isn't what you'd consider an organism but it would evolve without mechanisms we traditionally think of as being involved. So I would make the case that the word organism should be removed in favor of just a population. The first paragraph doesn't need to be all-encompassing definition of every facet of evolutionary theory, it should be very understandable by a lay-person and therefore needs to be simple. Further sentences would expound on the concepts of non-allele variation I would think. — raekyt 19:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference in stating what evolution is versus what the term refers to. It may be small in terms of # of words, but meaning is critically important here. The word organism is not redundant, because a population is not an organism and evolutionary biologists study organisms. Populations are abstractions and they do not have traits - this was already discussed above and the things changing are the ancestral-descendant sequences of organisms (not populations, although one could make that argument - this is not the place to extend such abstractions of the theory). I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to "what we traditionally think of as alive," plus this is an article on biological evolution, not evolutionism, which would include computer programs.Thompsma (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Once again, populations do not have inheritable traits - organisms (or individuals) do." Well said! Semantics is very important in science so we need to be accurate. I wonder if "in populations" is sufficient or perhaps "within and across populations (coevolution)" is more descriptive? I know, Iknow keep it simple. Hmmmmm. Evolution is the change in heritable traits of populations over succesive generations is confusing. Within a sexual reproducing population, every generation will always exhibit some change because sexual recombination will create new combinations of alleles and so changes in traits is inevitable, however evolution doesn't take place till a trait becomes more prominent in a population because of selection or drift. Evolution acts on the variation of traits within a pop. such one may become more successful. Fruit flies have evolved resistance to synthetic pesticides because of a 35K old transposon but the evolution didn't take place till the last 100 years when natural selection made the trait more prominent. Evolution is the shift in traits of individuals in a population in successive generations. The fact biological organisms have changing traits isn't evolution it is the change in the frequency of a trait is evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why I am making the claim that no person - even Gould (my personal hero) could derive a lead sentence that would define evolution. However, we can create a lead sentence that can define what the theory of evolution refers to and that sentence could be something that gives a very general overview on the topic.Thompsma (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma I couldn't agree more. I believe every reader wants to change the lead sentence-I know I did. I still agree with Thompsma about "change" because it implies the trait changes rather than the preponderance of the trait. I think: "Evolution is the shift in heritable traits of organisms in populations through successive generations" is getting closer. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As the sentence stands it can be rephrased to: Evolution is any change in a populations inheritable traits through successive generations. With the caveat that populations consist of individual organisms is implied or understood. That way it is clear it is the population that is changing and not the trait. At present it reads Evolution is any change of inheritable traits so the emphasis is on traits and implies the traits are somehow changing, which as Thompsma and a population geneticist would tell you it is the organisms within a population through successive generations that are changing traits (and sometimes shifting the frequency of allele genotypes within the population too). Good gooly that reads like crap too. You really have to indicate individuals within a population. Evolution is any change in organsims of a population inheritable traits through successive generations. Gee I think I have a brain hemorrhoid. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang wrong freakin' sentence. It is presently:Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Gee I guess it is Ok except maybe changing the end to "charcteristics of organisms in populations". I do have a brain hemorrhoid-it's official. A long list of expletives would make me feel better. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

.

Part of the problem is the ongoing dialogue about evolution as fact and theory. By saying evolution is something, it is being treated as a fact and I do not understand evolution in these terms. Evolution offers the best explanation of the body of facts, but it is not in itself a fact no matter how true it may be. A fact is an object or a process, but a true factual proposition is not a fact no matter how much you confirm, corroborate, or even refute a hypothesis or theory. It is a violation of the philosophy of science to claim that theories can transmute into fact. Natural selection is a metatheory, evolution is part of the metatheory. Organisms are facts, and their characteristics are facts. So to say that "Evolution is something" is treating it as though it is a fact, when it is really a theory. It is far more useful to understand and to present evolution as a theory. What evolutionary biologist has not treated evolution as a theory? Some have called it a fact, some have not, all have called it a theory. Theories refer to things, cause effect relations. When Ernst Mayr wrote his book on what evolution is, he wrote about the theory. Trying to summarize evolution as a fact that is "change in a populations inheritable traits through successive generations" is a confirmation of the obvious, but it hardly offers an explanation nor a definition of evolution from the conception of an entangled bank.

The current lead also refers abstractly to a single population as though you can turn evolution into some kind of minimizing principle, where the interactive stuff becomes secondary. Once you understand this minimizing principle, all the rest will follow. I don't buy into this idea. It is surprising to me that so many want to argue in favor of this kind of abstract definition that is contrary to the way that Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, Elisabeth Lloyd, Niles Eldredge, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, Sewall Wright, and a long list of scientific actors (including Darwin) wrote about the topic. These scientists gave us a very large part of the modern understanding of evolution and it gets thwarted in the first sentence? It would be far easier to argue that natural selection is an epistemilogical theory and an ontological fact. It is presented epistemilogically as a law of theory, a three part syllogism. It is also a process that is a factual part of the world, because variations, inheritability, and differential survival of organisms are facts, effects, and phenomena that occur in populations, that have been observed in nature, and experimentally realized by means of artificial selection. Natural selection is not evolution, but it is a means to it. Hence, I stand by my most recent proposal, re-posted here using an underlined elaboration on the concept:

• "Evolution by means of natural selection is the theory that refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations."

The underlined part can, of course, be removed. I will continue to read counter-proposals, but restate the claim that the current state of the lead sentence is presenting the reader a factual error about evolution. The cause being described by the actual theory of evolution is the origin of varieties, including genes, organisms, species, traits, or "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwin's original thesis kinda laid out the theory for us - we should use it.Thompsma (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a few comments.

• As you know, I don't agree with your definition of the word "fact," but I will save it for when I start editing "Evolution as fact and theory." :-)

• When I read "the inherited characteristics of biological populations," I interpret "the sum of all characteristics within that population and the associated frequencies." I imagine this was the intended sense - the word "of" is interpreted as the word "within." That being said, I wouldn't object to a change to "within;" I'm undecided on "of organisms in populations" mainly on the basis of concision. (Though if it were used I would recommend "of 'the' organisms in populations" for clarity.)

• I don't think there is a semantic difference between "is" and "refers to." Every word in every language "refers to" some concept; I don't think "is" necessarily implies that it is a singular thing that is referred to. E.g. if I say "An apple is a fruit produced by the Malus domestica tree..." I don't think I'm implying that all apples are identical. I could equivalently say " "Apple" [with an extra set of quotation marks] refers to a fruit produced by..." I am adding an extra semantic layer, i.e. I am talking about "apples" instead of apples, i.e. the word rather than the concept, but I don't think this is necessary for accuracy. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your insight on fact. To be clear, it is not my definition - but a definition that I have inherited from literature that I've cited (you know where, e.g., see page 13). The word "is: verb - 3rd person singular present indicative of be." Not only does it imply that that it is a singular thing, the definition states is is singular and we know evolution is not. And apples and evolution are not the same thing, so the metaphor is too weak to comment on. Although, I am a fan of your work and feedback Arc. "When I read "the inherited characteristics of biological populations," I interpret "the sum of all characteristics within that population and the associated frequencies." - You shouldn't interpret it as the sum, but as the multiplication of or division of, because that will give you a new sort of quantity. Combine them, but don't add them. When you do this you have a very different conception of evolution, simple summation is part of the problem here. Richard Dawkin's wrote:

• "“What is the entity about which you may say that an adaptation is good for it?” Is it for the good of the group, the individual, the gene, life as a whole, or what? My own answer to the question—the gene—is not the answer Ernst Mayr would give—the organism."^: 48

Dawkins (and others of the genetic essentialism camp) refer to the gene, Darwin, Mayr, (and many others of the dialectic interactor camp) refer to the organism. In last years debate on the lead we settled on traits rather than genes. Organisms have traits and they also have genes. Genes are theoretical entities - sequences of information as Dawkins defines them - organisms are not. Like Lewontin, Gould, and Sewall Wright, I have always found Dawkins' genetic essentialist conception to be a very weak scientific argument, but I'm not here to argue that point. The point I want to focus on is organisms, which were so important to the populationist thinking of Darwin's theory, which undermined the conceptual idea of species stability. I will re-quote the Mayr definition that brings organisms and populations together: "Evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms over time. Let's translate that (gradually) to our definition: "Evolution is change in the inheritable characteristics of populations of organisms over time." The current form: "Evolution is any change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." - My proposal: "Evolution refers to the change across successive generations in the inheritable characteristics of populations of organisms over successive generations." It is true that Ernst Mayr says that "Evolution is...", but I think it is an odd thing to contrive something so plural into a singular. A more inclusive approach - a consensus if you will - of a definition that brackets Gould to Dawkin's is to say that Evolution is a theory that refers to different kinds of change, sometimes it also refers to stability (i.e., preservation), because that is an important part of the theory as well.Thompsma (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If the word is means: "3rd person singular present indicative of be", then it is pointing out the state "to be". Editors want to define evolution as something that changes, yet at the same time define that evolution is something in some kind of state ("to be"). But if it means change, then it must change from one state to another in order to be what it is. It must be a process of changing states, to be in one state and then in another state, character states perhaps? Can all characters and states be treated the same, so they can be summed? If one character increases metabolic rate, while another improves on the beauty of an individual, do we sum these states into a singular definition of what evolution is - changing character states across successive generations? Or does evolution refer to character states, indicative of them, to integrate the science of what is evolving or has evolved?Thompsma (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A few more comments. :-)

-The word "is" is grammatically singular. (Perhaps I could have chosen a better example.) Instead of saying "An apple is," you could say "Humanity is," but this doesn't mean that humanity is a singular thing. It takes the singular "is" because as the English language developed people grouped humans into a single category represented by a singular word: e.g. instead of "Humanity is," you might say "All humans are," but the only difference is grammatical. Further examples would be "Science is," "The Universe is," "Epistemology is," and so forth.

-Unless Mayr has specifically discussed the word "is" elsewhere, I think the quote implies that he thinks the use of the word is valid. :-)

-Yes, when I said "sum" I meant to use the word in the sense "a general accounting for," i.e. the totality including the interactions and so forth (although of course any change can still be fully described by listing all the relevant individual changes). If we were to focus on a single gene I would simply interpret "any change in the relative frequencies of the forms of the genes [i.e. alleles] found within that population." But it seems to me that "biological populations" and "populations of organisms" are if not equivalent, very nearly so. Again, I would prefer the first on the basis of concision but not for any other reason.

-For your last comment, evolution does refer to a process, but analogous to above that doesn't mean it has to be grammatically plural. Weather events are also processes that pass through many intermediate states but we still say e.g. "A hurricane is." (And if you state that the word "is" is incorrect then you must state that the word "are" is correct.) Unless I am misunderstanding you?

-Did I miss anything? It would be great if you could try and increase your concision before posting. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem with biology is there are always exceptions to the rule so we have to be general but also inclusive-find a compromise. I apprecite the conciseness of Thompsma's proposal but perhaps "Evolution refers to the change (or "shift" as a nod to shifts in alleles and emphasize that traits are changing in frequencies and not a trait changing) in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations." It is real short :Evolution "describes" maybe rather than refers as a nod to theory aspect. Thus: "Evolution describes the shift in inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations". Maybe "change" is better, but describes maybe better than refer. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma your last statements really got me pondering. Recently you've probably read about the study of fence lizards interacting with invasive fire ants such that in areas with high pop of ants the lizards maintain a juvenile behavior of twitching and running rather than playing possum' and getting consumed in minutes as most-apparently their limbs are significantly longer morphologically too. This was reported as evolution in action , and I have no idea if any genetic studies have been performed, but it really raises questions related to some of your points. Telling this story isn't just examining lizard morphology but their behaviors and interactions with other species too. What they are observing are differences in character traits and not genetic differences, which I really have my doubts there really is any at this stage. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, I think you're onto something with the idea of replacing change with shift, because you're right, it's not the trait that is changing, but a shift in the frequency with which the trait occurs in the population. I think it also important to note that while it is the organisms that individually inherit and express these traits, the change is an aggregate shift in traits among the population. Sadly, there are still a lot of people out there who think of evolution as a theory that says monkeys changed into humans. The lead sentence might be the better off for indicating a "shift" rather than a "change" and should focus more on the population than the organism. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about something like this?

• "Evolution is a shift, over successive generations, in the inherited traits of organisms among a given population."

Or replace "is" with "refers to", I don't care about that. Divergence between populations isn't evolution, it's just evidence of the evolution that has occurred within the diverging populations, so I think "organisms among a given population" covers it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Shift is not a word I am particularly comfortable with:

1. to put (something) aside and replace it by another or others; change or exchange: to shift friends; to shift ideas.
2. to transfer from one place, position, person, etc., to another: to shift the blame onto someone else.

The key point is that evolution (as theory) provides explanations of the differences between organisms. There is a multi-verse of explanations (natural selection, red queen, genetic drift, founder effect, vicariance, constructal law of organization, Hardy-Weinberg, assembling phenotypes in space, norm-of-reaction, Baldwin effect, niche construction, monophyly, paraphyly, homology, homoplasy, and so on...). To say that there is a shift would imply that there was a discontinuity and if it is just a transfer, then there was no divergence. GetGrippa - you are referring to the genes as followers versus leaders debate, starting with Mark Baldwin's landmark paper - a great read if you're into the history of this stuff. The lead sentence needs to emphasize that it is inheritable traits in organisms that maintain the line of continuity from one generation to the next and it is in populations where selection and sorting occurs. If you want to maintain that evolution is something then:

• Evolution is a natural process where inheritable traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across a species range and over time.

This way is refers to a process. The other problem with the current lead is that it refers to evolution over time only, but there is [spatial evolution] to consider as well.Thompsma (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the strategy was just to reach some kind of compromise (between the editors arguing shifts in gene alleles,etc.) but I have no illusions any choice will either make readers happy nor likely stay the same. A little irony the evolution lead sentence tends to evolve. Cheers,GetAgrippa (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary (American Heritage, 4th ed.) includes a few other definitions of "shift", including a change in direction (as a shift in the wind), and I think several of these are as appropriate as any other word, but the AHD also defines evolve as "to develop or achieve gradually," so it occurred to me that if not everyone is satisfied with either "change" or "shift", maybe "development" would be an option. Thus,

"Evolution is the development of inherited traits of organisms among a given population over successive generations."

Thoughts? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the dictionary def on shift, I was thinking of researching the word shift further, but my dictionaries are packed away. However, I felt comfortable rejecting shift for other reasons that were apparent. It is not the term that is used in evolutionary literature, whereas many evolutionary biologists have referred to sorting (e.g., random genetic drift) and selection (i.e., natural selection). I have heard of niche shift, climatic shift, and of a species shifting in range, but cannot recall reading much about a genetic shift, or an evolutionary shift unless it is referring to something obscure or abrupt. It is not the appropriate term. Evolutionary biologists refer to divergence, as in species or genetic divergence. This is not a case of the lead sentence evolving, it is about correcting a fundamental error that has lodged itself into the very start of this featured article and I would like to see the error corrected.

Wilhelm_meis' next proposal on development is a definite oppose and it does not make sense. I reads like you are just throwing words in that you like, without understanding the conceptual meaning behind them; not to be offensive, but that is what it seems like. Development has a very specific meaning in evolutionary theory, such as it is used in ontogeny or the semaphorant hypotheses. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny is an important dictum of evolutionary theory. We can go with inherited, and a few other tweaks:

• Proposal: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations and this causes divergence across generations and throughout a species geographic range.

I lilke the divergence idea (cause it includes HGT and hybridization). Perhaps rather than process call it a phenomena: Evolution is a natural phenomena where inherited traits of ogranisms are selected and sorted in populations causing the divergence across successive generations. Shorten it a bit. Call it a phenomena and refer to the processes???GetAgrippa (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Divergence is general enough to refer to both genetic and species divergence. The concept of "selection and sorting" (and here, and even here) is used widely in evolutionary literature, among genetic essentialists and hierarchical evolutionists alike.Thompsma (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The second part to my proposal is a bit clumsy, how about:

• Proposal2: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across successive generations and in a species geographic range.

The terms "causes divergence" has been used with regularity, I think it is useful to adapt bits of phrases and conceptions used by publishing evolutionary biologists to offer a good representation of the theory.Thompsma (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is obviously offensive, and I think you knew that. You don't seem to be very interested in collaboration, so just write whatever you want. I have other fish to fry. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not my intent to be offensive, just pointed out what seemed obvious in all honesty. I've had professional editors say far worse critiques in my manuscript proposals. It goes with the territory and it also helps to make me think a bit deeper about what I am trying to say when a sharp critique is deserved. Your proposal made no sense, suggesting that evolution is development when clearly it is not. Collaborate, but do a bit of research in your proposals for credibility - evolution is not an opinion, it is a science.Thompsma (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GetAgrippa - I have not yet got around to incorporating text on evolutionary phenomena into the evolution as fact and theory article, but have done the research on this. Evolution is not a phenomena, so that idea will not work (see here for an explanation of phenomena). My only concern with divergence is that it does not cover the branching process. Evolution includes anagenesis(divergence) and cladogenesis(splitting). Hence:

• Proposal3: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species over successive generations and biogeographically.Thompsma (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an update comment. I think some of the proposals now being discussed are very awkward English and I am not convinced by the logical "necessity" of the added complications. Of course it is up to more people than just me but I just wanted to note some doubts from one person about whether this direction is going to lead anything that will get a consensus. As a second point though, it seems from the above discussion, before it went in other directions, that some non-controversial simplification of the existing sentence is possible and I will try making the appropriate edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What is awkward about the latest proposal Andrew? However, I am not necessarily the best judge of my own writing. If you could be more specific on the problem with the proposal that would be more helpful. Just saying that it is "very awkward English" is not saying very much. I would like to see some guidance in your critique. For example, you could state that there is a split infinitive in the sentence if that is the kind of grammatical problem you can identify. Specific and direct information is useful. The current lead paragraph is very awkward indeed (grammatically and logically), because evolution is not the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations as it claims. It would be more precise to state that evolution is the replacement of inherited characteristics in biological populations. The grammar is awkward because of the use of "the" definite article in front of change. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics..." Why is this not written in the more general form of the indefinite article? "Evolution is a change..." or "Evolution is change in the inherited characteristics..." Hence, the grammar of the current lead sentence is awkward. Moving onto the logic of it: "In Darwinian theory, evolutionary change is the product of sorting (differential birth and death among varying organisms within a population). Sorting is a simple description of differential representation; it contains, in itself, no statement about causes." Note: evolutionary change contains no statement about causes. Causes are important and as I have stated previously: "‘Change’ is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution, but rather explanations of the differences between organisms." Hence, I provide citable links to three notable evolutionary biologists making two claims: 1) that evolutionary change makes no statement about causes, and 2) that evolutionary change is not the quality of interest. Yet, the first sentence in this article wants to make the claim that "Evolution is change..."

Moreover, the use of the definite article "the" in front of change implies falsely that there is some very specific kind of change that is evolution. What kind of change? "Change in the inherited characteristics..." It would almost make better sense to write: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of the biological populations...". Hopefully you can see the grammatical problem with the abuse of the definite article. The current lead sentence is vague and factually incorrect, because it is really the replacement of inherited characteristics that causes evolution not the change in the inherited characteristics. Evolutionary biologists state that: "Biological evolution consists of two processes: anagenesis (or phyletic evolution) and cladogenesis (i.e., splitting). My proposal covers both anagenesis and cladogenesis, where the current lead does not. Obviously, the evolutionary process involves some kind of selection process (i.e., natural selection) and there is also a sorting (i.e., non-causal drift) that occurs and my proposal addresses this. The second sentence in the current lead is an even greater disaster in meaning and in grammatical structure. Likewise, I do see a grammatical error in the second sentence of my proposal where I should have used "or" instead of "and", hence:

• Proposal4: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species biogeographically or over successive generations.Thompsma (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thompsma (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

convenience break

First, a quick summary of the more simple proposals so far:

• RECENT: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.
• SIMPLIFICATION: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.
• Raeky modification:Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.
• My modification: Evolution in biology is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.

And here is the series of proposals from the discussion of GetAgrippa and Thompsma:

• Thompsma compromise reaction to Raeky: Evolution refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations.
• Milliam Meis proposal: Evolution is a shift, over successive generations, in the inherited traits of organisms among a given population.
• Thompsma reaction: Evolution is a natural process where inheritable traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across a species range and over time.
• William Meis reaction: Evolution is the development of inherited traits of organisms among a given population over successive generations.
• Proposal: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations and this causes divergence across generations and throughout a species geographic range.
• Proposal2: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across successive generations and in a species geographic range.
• Proposal3: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species over successive generations and biogeographically.
• Proposal4: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species biogeographically or over successive generations.

Now here are my comments on why I do not prefer the evolution, so to speak, represented in the latter discussion.

1. Firstly, I believe that basically all terms in the first sentence should be ones which do not need long discussion or special study in order to understand in one clear way for a reasonably well educated English speaker. Consider whether "natural process" and "sorted and selected" meet this criteria. If they do, then they can be replaced with simpler terms. If they don't then it is not clear what they are supposed to mean. The style can sometimes work in lectures: you start with a technical sentence and then you go through each of the technical terms. But it does not suit the opening line of a Wikipedia article, partly because different parts of the article are written by different people at different times. We need a very modular way of writing.

2. Secondly I think that the push to try to solve supposed logical problems is over-stretched. I see no reason to say that this Wikipedia article is about "the term" evolution, and not about evolution as such. I see no reason to specify that characteristics inherited within biological populations are inherited by the individuals within those populations. I see no reason to replace characteristics with traits. And so on.

3. Just in general, these proposals are demonstrably going to get longer and longer, and try to do more and more. They are trying to do to much in one sentence. This is a classic problem on Wikipedia: over-worked openings, which try to fit everything at the start of an article. If we want to modify the lead as a whole or the article as a whole, then we should discuss those wholes, and not try to work only on the opening sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, simple is good, and we don't want to get overly technical in the opening sentence. We have the whole rest of the article to explain things in further detail, but most of this article's readers are not geneticists (and English is a second language for many of en.Wiki's readers), and we don't want to lose them at the first sentence. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with some of Andrew's points, but agree with Wilhelm that simple is beneficial to reach a wider audience. First off, however, as an educator on evolution I would like to know who is the adjudicator of what is simple? I teach evolution to high school students and have been studying feed-back responses using an instrument for a number of years. I have used Ed's Tools (see also) on evolutionary and ecological concepts and most of the terms I use are acceptable to a grade 10 level - testing the terms I have borrowed on a sample size of 178 students at that grade level. I think some assumptions need to be checked on what people can and cannot grasp. If someone comes to a page on evolution and has a problem with the concept of "natural process", then they should go to introduction to evolution, because natural and process are relatively simple concepts to integrate. Sorting is not difficult. Selection is not difficult. The alternative, Andrew, is to retain an introduction to the concept of evolution that is factually incorrect, but simpler to understand. A factually incorrect view may be simpler to understand, but if this is so, then the concept is not truly being understood, which does not make it simpler, but wrong. I will not accept factual inconsistencies and nobody in here should agree that this is an acceptable practice for the sake of simplicity.

I work with other biologists who have an interest in the public outreach of this and other scientific topics. We meet regularly to discuss the possibilities of public-outreach in wikipedia, but evolution is a problem that we have flagged. I realize that there are evolutionary biologists working in here, but there is something very peculiar in this article because there are is lot of sloppiness. Your point #2 about the term evolution vs. the concept is not what this is about and it is a peculiar interpretation of what is going on here. Clearly, I am writing about evolution, not the term - whatever that means.

I fully agree that the rest of this article has much work to improve on and yet here we are. I have worked and worked on this article much harder than any other article in wikipedia and I cannot get a simple edit to repair a factual error on the stupid lead sentence! I am left to conclude that something else is fundamentally wrong here with this particular article. What is going on with the social editorial dynamics in this particular article? Why is there such a barrier? Is it an American thing? A response to creationism? It is weird whatever it is and even worthy of investigation. Contributions are being thwarted without good justification. I work diligently in other articles, find great collaborations, and other editors note improvements, but in evolution the work is unjustly rejected. Evolution is something I am passionate about and I disappointed to find a few stubborn ring-leader editors who do not want to collaborate, but would rather perform arm-chair rejections without offering substantive assistance.

Your point #3 is exactly the problem I am trying to solve. You have misplaced your critique, because it is the current lead sentence that is trying "to fit everything at the start", which is a good reason to suspect why the factual error exists. Your point that these proposals are going to get longer and longer is incorrect. In fact, the final proposal is a truncation of the first paragraph in the current lead. I have not proposed anything that is longer and longer. This is hyperbole, a sloppy critique. I am fine with using characteristics instead of traits, that must have been a copy paste transition that occurred - I would have retained the former for simplicity. I absolutely want to work on the rest of the article, but once we find a way to work together and fix the first glaring error - then I will be willing to go into the meat of this article. I am fine with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the lead - it is the first paragraph that is incorrect and it needs to be repaired.

For your question, I would say "a response to creationism." My first thought is that a high-traffic article like this one has the potential to change thousands of lives through education, and the lead is the most important part of all, and the first sentence is the most important part of the lead. When I was first taught evolution, the definition we started with was "change of species over time" - using no words that an average person wouldn't know. I couldn't have understood the definition we have here until we had actually finished.

Although I hope I'm not in the group you're calling "stubborn" - I'm just making whatever observations I think would lead to the best result. :-) It's true that I'm not offering suggestions, but there are already a lot being discussed and I tend to not pay as much attention to pages that already have a lot of editors. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal5: Evolution is a natural process where inherited characteristics of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and it explains how new species originate in different places or over successive generations.

I am looking forward to constructive collaboration and not another lame statement equivalent to - "I don't like it." My six year old can give better feedback than this. This proposal is shorter than the current first paragraph to the lead. Please put some legitimate thought into the feedback and offer constructive assistance. Rejection is simple. Working with others is the more difficult road, but at least roads can lead us somewhere.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a little more complicated, but in the interest of collaboration toward something that works, here is my feedback on this proposal. I think breaking it into two sentences could be a reasonable solution. By simple I don't mean dumbed down to the point of inaccuracy. I mean grammatically simple (such as avoiding stacking too many dependent clauses into a single sentence), mostly for the sake of 1) young readers and 2) ESL readers. I think I was the one who introduced "traits" in the sentence, partly because traits was in the name of the linked article and partly because I think "traits" is as easily understood as "characteristics", but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other on traits vs. characteristics. Technically it is the traits (e.g. blonde hair) rather than the characteristics (e.g. hair color) that are being selected and sorted, is it not? So here is what I would change about the latest proposal:

Evolution is the natural process of selection and sorting of inherited traits of organisms across populations over successive generations. Evolution causes genetic divergence between populations in different places, and this explains how new species originate.

I also rearranged the words a bit, in order to group some ideas together, such as the logical flow of traits > organisms > populations > generations, and reserving "divergence between populations in different places" ( > new species) to the second sentence. I'm a little ambivalent about "between" populations though, as this implies comparison only between two populations, where the actual comparison is often "among" several populations. That's my thought for now, I'll come back to it later. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplified a little more, here is my new counterproposal:

• Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence among populations in different places.

I'm not sure the word "natural" is necessary here and I think it could be construed as false accuracy. I think if we say the process is..."leading to genetic divergence" it has to be "among" and not "between" populations, since more than two populations exist. Origin of species is already covered in the existing second sentence. This proposal still has a huge stack of prepositional phrases, but it's a compromise after all, and I think most people can understand simple prepositional phrases in series. I think it's fairly easy for the layman to understand, and pretty much sums up my understanding of evolution (if I had to state it in 25 words or less). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 08:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Further to my comment above, just a brief interjection) I think that's a good structure. I would retain "biological populations" rather than using "populations in different places" though. (Besides, both evolution and speciation can occur without geographical separation. :-) ) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point. There are more factors at play than geographically related variables. While the point does not falsify the sentence as phrased above, there may be merit to leaving it at "populations" (rather than "in different places"). On the other hand, what if we were to shorten it up even more, but cutting "among populations" altogether? Thus:

• Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence.

This leaves the results of evolution open to any number of possibilities, which are all detailed farther down in the article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "populations" is necessary, since it's a fairly key point that it is populations that evolve and not individuals. Thinking it over a bit (basically a restatement of what I've already said), I would write

• Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence of biological populations.

I would keep "biological" because it clarifies that "populations" has a specific use different from the everyday one, and also because otherwise someone will probably put "In biology" at the front anyways (and it's better at the end than the beginning). I also added wikilinks to "selection" and "populations".

Although I also just realized that I have a concern about the term "genetic divergence." It is usually used in the context of speciation, with two different populations diverging from each other (e.g. see genetic divergence). But of course evolution includes more than just speciation. Perhaps "genetic changes of" or "changes in the genetic composition of" would be better? Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Side comment. I just want to note what has happened here. I have given a detailed explanation about what is wrong with this whole direction of discussion. No one has replied to it with any counter arguments. Instead Thompsma has given some comments which imply that my post just says "I don't like it" (ouch) and pretends not to understand how clear English can ever be "adjudicated" in an objective way. Then he has re-started discussion in his original preferred direction, also introducing other issues which have been discussed many times on this talk page before such as making selection a part of the definition of evolution. IMHO FWIW I think this will not lead to a new lead sentence that has any consensus. If we are going to introduce words with unclear or multiple meanings such as process and genetic divergence then we will not have a good first sentence. And what does it really add?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe a suggestion: it might be much better to break the proposals of Thompsma up into separate discussions. There are lots of different changes being proposed. Consider the difference between the current version and the many different versions being discussed. Particular points needing discussion seem to include:

• Whether we should specify that we are talking about evolution in biology and/or populations in biology. I would say that we should specify in the opening words that this article is about evolution in biology. I see no point, if we do that, of making the point about populations.
• Whether we really need to use a more complicated word that "change", and if so which one and why?
• Whether there is really a good reason to change from characteristics to traits.

...and so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The characteristics change due to the selection of traits. I think if we use selection rather than change, then we should use traits rather than characteristics. IMHO I don't see that process is appreciably ambiguous in the given context. But maybe there's something I'm not seeing. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there are some people in here who are willing to collaborate in a productive way. Wilhelm and Arc have brought in some great feedback and contributions. Just to re-affirm Andrew - I am not trying to get things to go my way. I have an understanding of evolution - should hope that I do after all my education in this field. It seems that you feel the current lead sentence is fine and I will go over this one more time so that you can understand why it is factually incorrect. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." What this is saying is that the inherited characteristics are changing - "change in the inherited characteristics". Inherited characteristics do change, but that is ontological development not evolution. Evolutionary biologists observe and record characteristics of the organisms they study. I could go into detail on character state issues and units of evolution, but for simplicity we can state that a character is a unit of an integrated whole, the organism. Evolution whittles away at organisms that are the vehicles wielding the characters that change during the ontological development of organisms. The whittling is selection and sorting. It is not me who is making this argument, that was Darwin, Gould, Mayr, and even Dawkin's who has made this argument. Even that the sentence states that these characters are in biological populations, it still is operationally infactual and gives a very different contrived outlook on evolutionary theory that cannot be supported by any credible source. Hopefully this makes the subject matter clear to you in relation to the points you have listed. I am not seeking a lead sentence of my own design. I am seeking a lead sentence that is correct and one that does not try to contrive evolutionary theory into a singular statement as the current lead does. Here are my thoughts on the points you raise:

1. Are we talking about evolution in biology or populations in biology? Ernst Mayr and many others have agreed that what Darwin did for evolutionary theory was to turn the science away from essentialism to a form of population thinking rooted in materialism (see here and here for papers reviewing this). The population aspect to the theory was critical. Variations within populations became subject to rather than the object of natural agency. This actually relates to the heart of the problem with the current lead. It misses this critical aspect to the theory entirely by implying that the characters evolve, when it is the selection and sorting of characters in populations that causes evolution.
2. The issue of change relates to the first point. It depends on how the term change is used. The current lead uses it improperly. I am open to the use of the term, but I think that selection and sorting gives a much clearer picture of what is actually going on. Change is vague, whereas many evolutionary biologists (including Darwin) referred to natural selection and sorting of traits (or characters).
3. I am indifferent to character or trait in the lead. Both are loaded terms and synonyms from the point of what is trying to be conveyed here. I can go into greater detail on the character vs. trait conceptions, but it does not really seem to important here. In some ways the term trait is nothing more than the more antiquated term for character.

I have to run, but I will have more to say on the new proposals. Shortly - I thought about "leading to" instead of "cause". I think that "leading to" is not the best choice, because it implies inevitability where most evolutionary biologists speak in terms of probability materialism. The terms selection and sorting should both be introduced, drift in lieu of sorting would be fine. It would be a shame to leave out one of the most valuable theoretical contributions in evolutionary theory since Darwin.Thompsma (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A few comments on the discussion above. Arc brought a point about genetic divergence usually referring to speciation - that is false. Genetic divergence does not usually refer to speciation, it covers a very broad spectrum from divergence within a population, phylogeographically, and, yes, genetic divergence accompanies the speciation process, but genetic divergence is not the same hypothesis as speciation (cladogenesis) nor are they equivalent in reality. This is covered extensively in John Avise's work on phylogeography and in numerous publications on gene trees versus species trees. I made an error in my previous post on "leading to" versus "cause" - in both cases it should be "may lead to", "may cause", or "is the cause of". I would like to compare my earlier proposal to the current one that is on the table to see if we can find a common ground while retaining a correct meaning of evolution:

• Proposal5: Evolution is a natural process where inherited characteristics of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and it explains how new species originate in different places or over successive generations.
• Proposal6: Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence.

Two problems with 'Proposal6' is that it only covers selection, evolution is both selection (causal adaptation) and drift (random sorting). The final clause in proposal6 "leading to genetic divergence" is also incomplete, because evolution is anagenesis and cladogenesis. Here is my attempt at a merger:

• Proposal7: Evolution is a biological process of selecting and sorting the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time.Thompsma (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to include natural:

• Proposal8: Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting and sorting the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time.

Natural is very important to the meaning of evolution - natural selection, natural preservation, and the naturalism of evolution in general.Thompsma (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A good source definition on evolution is found in Strickberger's Evolution - cited in the lead; the 2014 edition is soon to be released. This textbook on evolution devotes a whole section on the definition of evolution through its historical development to the modern conception in a sub-section titled "Evolution as a process". The authors for this text suggest that a definition should reflect on genes, organisms, and populations because evolution acts at these levels. Proposal8 is comprehensive in these terms. It might be an improvement to add the term random:

• Proposal9: Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time. It might be interpreted that the current lead is saying that characters change in the populations, but why would we leave it open to interpretation and unclear?~

Looking forward to comments, feedback, and discussion. Proposal8 is simpler in terms, but proposal9 expands on the terms and might clarify the concepts a bit better.Thompsma (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thompsma. One thing I do not see amongst all the above is a clear explanation about why any of these ideas would be better than the existing lead sentence. I think that is what is also making it difficult to get more feedback from others. As you know, on an article like this people will generally say that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Can you clarify a bit about how you would answer that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)) 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of "successive generations" in either proposal. In the effort to be too conclusive forgettin' da basics. It almost borders on conflating natural selection (selecting for) and genetic drift (random sorting) as the definition of evolution rather than processes of evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew - I gave a very clear explanation above why the existing lead sentence is erroneous. The current lead sentences are conflating ontological development with tokogeny and phylogeny. It is saying that development is evolution. Seems like feedback is rolling in. To GetAgrippa - the second sentence used "through time", which is more general and simpler than "successive generations". We could use "successive generations" instead. The first sentence does make it clear that evolution is a process and, yes, selection and drift of variable heritable characteristics in populations are the critical elements to evolution. The current lead mistakenly suggests that change in the characters themselves is evolution, or it implies it. If you want to have a lose reading of it, you might be able to interpret the current lead in a wayThompsma (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Thompsma, I think the average reader may misinterpret through time with through a lifetime so I suggest successive generation. The first sentence should mention what happens to traits: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations such that these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population. These genetic differences can lead to reproductive isolation and the generation of new species. Maybe reproductive isolation is too narrow a species definition but I like the idea that evolution proceeds and speciation "can" be an outcome. I think you are correct the current definition just states traits change without saying why. The traits of synthetic life have changed-although artificially engineered, and this would fit as evolution with the current definition which is incorrect as it is artificial design. Without some mechanisms for the process it doesn't mean anything saying traits change in populations-when they always change because of sexual recombination but it isn't evolution till the processes of selection and random drift make the trait more or less common. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

'Evolution' in genetics textbooks is defined in a number of different ways- Change in allele frequency, descent with modification, speciation, change over time, and the one that has yet to be demonstrated (that copying mistakes during DNA replication can build genomes) that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a single primordial organism ~3.5 billion years ago. Jinx69 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop deliberately conflating evolution with abiogenesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Sædon^talk 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should demand that Jinx69 cite a reputable "genetics textbook" (or any other biology-themed textbook) that defines Evolution as being "all life on earth shares a common ancestor ~3.5 billion years ago"? I think it's only fair to do so.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For information on common ancestry, see: Theobald, D. L. (2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry". Nature: 219-223. IMHO - I disagree with the notion that evolution and abiogenesis should have such a strict separation; some evolutionary biologists concur with this sentiment. There is a continuum of process from the big bang creating the periodic table of elements leading seamlessly into the origins of life; out of chaos to order the transitions are connected. Evolution offers valid theory on the origins of life - such as RNA world to the selection and sorting of molecules in a niche constructed primordial soup. The theory comfortably reaches into the depths of time and even the origins of galaxies. After all, life is star dust. We are the offspring of supernova. However, the scope of that discussion reaches beyond the basic biological theory that is to be covered in this article.Thompsma (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GetAgrippa - I like your suggestion, but I would tweak it slightly. Lets see if we can build consensus on the following.

• Proposal10: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms. Variable characteristics may become common or rare in and across populations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over successive generations as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated."Thompsma (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the "explains how new species originate and diverge in different places" and the reference to biogeography which really struck Darwin. This definition is definitely more explanatory than the present definition and more comprehensive (like "in and across populations", and "reproductive and ecological" references are great). I still think most editors don't get why the present definition in the article is really meaningless, but it can easily be misread and is ambiguous. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you GetAgrippa - the current lead sentence is not only meaningless and needs a translator to read the information correctly, it is erroneous in its literal interpretation. Once we can get this fixed, I may start to work on the body of this article, but I am a little reluctant to work on this article. I am thinking I will do this on my own time in my sandbox - because there is too many hesitant 'nay-sayer' editors guarding this article in a ridiculous way, which is preventing progress. Evolution as fact and theory is a project that I have been working on lately and it still needs lots of work. However, it would be great to get the main evolution article repaired - because it is featured, yet lame. If the lead gets passed I will start putting a phylogenetics or evolutionary tree section together, which is the most blatant holes in this article. The article could actually be re-titled "Genetic Essentialism" - because, with a few tweaks it would make a great article on that topic. I'm still trying to figure out where the actual topic of evolution is covered.Thompsma (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The present definition states: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Thus we now deduce that every time sexualy reproducing organims have offspring (successive generations)that their differences (change in traits) is evolution=thus evolution becomes synonymous with sexual recombination or mutations and variation of traits. I won't even bring up the paradox with neutral molecular evolution and this definiiton. A mutation isn't evolution nor variation during sexual recombination. Evolution isn't the change in traits but why certain traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. It is too simple, ambiguous, and problematic. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerning some of the two points being made above:

• All the changes make for a more complex and unreadable opening, not the opposite.
• The theory of evolution, although it did not make the concept of a species useless, converted the word forever into something which is never perfectly possible to define. So evolution can not be defined as speciation. It is the other way around: in modern biology evolution is the more solid fact, and speciation can be discussed in terms of evolution. So in not defining in terms of speciation, the current lead is correct and also not asserting anything controversial, while the changes being proposed are at least controversial.
• Also, modern understandings of evolution do not include the assumption of any direction in evolution. There is just accumulating change, not change of a particular type. So in this respect the current lead is more correct than the proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)