Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 9 December 2011

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Evolution as fact and theory. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Evolution as fact and theory at the Reference desk.

Evolutionary biology C‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: speedy keep, 18 April 2010, see discussion. speedy keep, 24 July 2008, see discussion.

Archives

December 2006 - October 2007 Up to January 2008 Up to December 2008 Up to December 2009 Up to June 2010 Up to 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Evolutionary theory predicts novel inventions

Can the definitive statement "an increase in the information of the DNA of the E. coli" be supported? Artcomp (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not information is actually increased is another question, but the cited source (New Scientist article) does not make this claim so it is misleading to present the statement with this citation. If the term information is used in biology in the same sense as it is in information theory (I am not a biologist so don't know) then an increase in information would necessarily mean an increase in the length of the genome or an increase in the source coding efficiency.Neither of these things is claimed in the cited source. While it is clear that the information has been changed in some way there is no claim that it has been increased. SpinningSpark 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. But close. - The source is http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.htm. The text of the source does not have the phrase "an increase in the information of the DNA of the E. coli", nor even mention of the word "increase" or the word "information". The article is certainly talking about some kind of enhanced capabilities of the strain, and so the gist of the material is correct. But a better wording could be used. Such as: "additional capabilities were observed" or "new biological processes came into existence" or something like that. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Text changed - I changed the text in the article to more closely represent the source. --Noleander (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's better, this business of "information" is misleading: does a snowflake have more information than a drop of water? On prediction, Angraecum sesquipedale is rather fun. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Probably resolved - This RfC is probably resolved. The originator should probably close it. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proof

I would add to the later part in the lead sentence (bolded): "When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed." What is meant by directly observed? When I analyze DNA sequences, is this not directly observed? Perhaps something should be added about proof, in the scientific sense of experimental demonstration. At its most basic level any measurement is an experiment. Search direct experimental in this book for an example. This paper discusses proof in context of the endosymbiotic hypothesis back in 1982. My understanding of scientific proof is that it requires an experimental method (e.g., phylogenetics), peer review, and it has a social/community element added to it as well (see and for e.g., ).Thompsma (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like this wording, it fails the sniff test for a creationist statement. Even though it's technically true we can't observe directly past speciation events, we can and do observe it currently happening, and we have vast bodies of evidence to show how and that it does happen. This article is most basically about defining what a theory and fact is in science, and not specifically about the theory. — raekyt 07:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment is probably redundant but what "cannot be directly observed" means in this context is that no one can observe a species from the past that has "turned into" another species, let alone observe all the changes from the common ancestor (yes, I know the text in quotes is a misstatement). I am referring to the debating tactics used by those who oppose evolution, or those who have been confused by the former (i.e. there are people who have a somewhat open mind, but who think that the "cannot be directly observed" factoid means that "belief" in evolution is similar to other beliefs). I'm not sure of the best way to improve the text, but I would like the article to say the evolution cannot be directly observed in some sense (what the "person in the street" would interpret as "observed), yet in a scientific sense evolution has been observed, as mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the current working, although maybe it can be improved upon. When a biologist observes a strand of DNA and interprets it as evidence of an event that occurred many many millions of years ago, it is not a direct observation of common ancestry. It is the direct observation of data which must then be interpreted in a way consistent with other observed data as well as a very powerful theory that biologists consider far more powerful than any competing theory. This is still not the same thing as direct observation. When an archaeologist analyzes certain paleolithic remains she might conclude, even realize with a thrill of discovery, that she is observing compelling evidence of X (a large, socially differentiated urban settlement; cannibalism; the use of fire for cooking, whatever). This is still not direct observation of X. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The human eye can only 'observe' a limited scope of the electromagnetic spectrum. When we use instruments to open the scope (e.g., Voyager satellite: 1. Magnetic field instrument (MAG), 2. Low energy charged particle instrument (LECP), 3. Cosmic ray instrument (CRS), 4. Plasma instrument (PLS), 5. Plasma wave instrument (PWS), 6. Ultraviolet spectrometer subsystem (UVS)) are we observing that information directly as it is relayed back to Earth, or is this an indirect observation? There are examples where evolution has been 'observed' directly. For example, Bacteriophage experimental evolution with reference to , and . Hence, the statement is false that common ancestry cannot be directly observed. Of course it can be directly observed - that's the whole point behind the discovery. When I run a DNA sequence through a capillary sequencer - am I directly observing the gene? I can see the output on the computer screen of AGTC nucleotide sequences, but the information has travelled through the output media. The same occurs in our eyes - photons have to travel along signal pathways before the information is 'observed'. The same can be said of looking at fossil data and looking at the morphological transformations in a phylogenetic tree - this is direct observation of evolution, the information has to travel along different pathways before the pattern is observed, but it is observed directly nonetheless.

• "Over the past 150 years, this initial list has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations."Thompsma (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other papers that have observed speciation directly, even though I realize that this is not what this sentence is specifically focused on - I think the point is relevant: , , (contesting the former), and this link provides many more examples. Of course we can't invent a time machine and go back to see if there is a single origin of life by 'direct observation', if that's how you want to interpret it. However, there is just as much direct evidence for the common origin of species as there is that I am a real person typing out this text. We observe directly the information content that allows us to interpret its meaning and origins, whether it is photons of light that travel along neural circuits that allow me to see something occurring in real-time before my eyes (even then, the human mind distorts reality honing in on some information and filling in gaps of the periphery) or genes that have replicated homologous copies through the depth of time retaining a universal code before that information is received by my eyes. The observation is direct in the sense that it is pointing toward the source of the information, the delay in time is a relative matter. Staring at the stars we can see the expansion of the universe, but are we seeing it directly given the length of time it takes for the light to travel? These are perspectives that should be considered in context of this sentence.Thompsma (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but this article should help readers who are genuinely concerned by the "cannot be directly observed" argument that is trotted out by opponents. It is best to frankly agree that in the sense meant by a nonscientist (or in the very sensible sense given by Slrubenstein above), no one has directly observed past speciation—to argue that evolution has been directly observed is to erect a wall between readers and an understanding of the situation. How do we know that evolution is a "fact"—because of evidence such as that described by Thompsma, and that is even better than direct observation because such observations can always be mistaken (e.g. we observe magicians who make things disappear). Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have observed it, and it's absolutely ridiculous to assume someone observed speciation events that happened tens of thousands or years or millions of years ago, so why even mention it. You wouldn't need to put in Moon that noone observed the moon forming. Readers are smart enough to know that noone observed something that happened millions of years ago. Since we've been watching with enough intelligence to know what to look for we HAVE observed speciation. So the argument "it's never been observed" is ignorant and best delt with else where like, Objections to evolution. I'm not sure what your goal is here? — raekyt 03:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this whole article just a response to creationist confusion? Certainly I would not have made my above comments about an article like Evolution. What should be said to those who are genuinely confused and who hear the "not directly observed" line? It may not be very encyclopedic (and should not be in the lead), but my hope would be that the article could agree that in the sense used by a typical person there is no "direct" observation of common descent, but there is direct observation in scientific terms (insert details here). Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the moon example that raeky provided - I would also say that nobody has directly observed an atom, gravitational fields, or a DNA molecule either, yet those things are not controversial. Hence, I also agree with Johnuniq. My thoughts are that this is an opportunity to discuss direct observation in context of experimental or demonstrative proof. This could draw from some philosophers of science to piece this kind of argument together. For example,

"Nancy Cartwright advocates causalism. In her opinion one makes a very strong claim in calling something a cause. We must understand why a certain type of event regularly produces an effect. Perhaps the clearest proof of such understanding is that we can actually use events of one kind to produce events of another kind."

We can use anatomy in modern organisms (events of one kind) to match the anatomy in fossil organisms (events of another kind). Proof is also about making predictions, which is what phylogenetics and the comparative method is all about. Evolutionary biologists make predictions all the time. I think the sentence should be reformulated, because it masks how compelling the evidence is - common descent has been proven. It may be that there were multiple origins of life, but even if this were so - the universal genetic code indicates a common origin, or convergence due to constraint. The later has been rejected on the grounds that there are variations in the code and the single origin is more parsimonious.Thompsma (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• The wording is awkward and lacks any citation. Having found a suitable source, I've rephrased "even though this cannot be directly observed" to say that the scientific theory of common ancestry is a fact "in that predictions made by the theory have consistently been supported by empirical observations." citing "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent". TalkOrigins Archive. 30 September 2011. Retrieved 8 October 2011.. Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 07:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It reads a lot better dave souza! Would it help, however, to put a sentence on 'proof' in the lead? You often hear the uninformed stating - "you know it isn't proven" - without a clue of what proof means. The last sentence in this article states: ""Proof" of a theory does not exist in natural sciences. Proof only exists in formal sciences, such as mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation." - is a problem. It lacks citation and is incorrect. Proof is experimental demonstration. Natural sciences consist of natural experiments - not to be confused with the wikipedia version Natural experiment, which should be changed to accommodate examples of natural experiment in evolutionary terms: . The theory of island biogeography is also an example of a natural experiment. MacArthur and Connell (1966) described it thus:

"Experiments performed by population biologists indicate another difference between population biological and other branches of science. Anyone familiar with the clear-cut experiments of physiologists and embryologists is likely to think that an experiment involves the actual manipulation of objects by the experimenter. The scientist subjects a nerve to some some chemical stimulus and records the electrical activity further along the nerve, or he pinches a young embryo in to and watches how each half develops. Actually an experiment is only observation motivated by curiosity. The experimenter says to himself: "I wonder what would happen if the embryo were divided in two halves and each half were allowed to develop independently." The only way for him to find the answser is to divide the embryo into halves himself...The population biologist, however, discovers the answer to his question without actively tampering with nature. Because the face of the earth offers a wide variety of conditions, the population biologist can find his experiment already performed for him somewhere."

I also notice that this book has not been cited in here - it is the perfect resource for this page.Thompsma (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proof is for whisky, and my tendency is to stick to beer these days.... but your suggestion has merit. Obviously, something to cover in the article with a concise mention in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Serious problems with this fact and theory article

I am reposting information that has recently come to light in the main evolution article. There is some serious philosophical misinformation contained with this article. People are confused with what is fact and what is theory. Evolution is not a theory, there are MANY theories about descent with modification, such as natural selection, homology, heritability, genetics, neutrality, and even SINE evolution and the transformation of whales is a theory about evolution. It is imperative that the correct information about the science of evolution is relayed "At a time when evolutionary biology, and science in general, is under attack from advocates of creationism and intelligent design, with the caveat that theirs is a ‘scientific research program’(Dembski 1999: 13; Ross 2006; Wells 2006), it is incumbent upon evolutionary biologists to carefully and correctly outline the nature of scientific investigation." Here are a few other relevant quotes from Fitzhugh (2007) that calls into question some of the claims made in this article:

• "Facts, as used in science, are quite different from theories and the two are best kept strictly separated."
• "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993). Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact, given that theories are not objects to be discerned by their state of being. But, is there a proper context in which we might speak of evolution as a fact? One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of ‘evolution’ as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses."
• "An emphasis on associating ‘evolution’ with ‘fact’ presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty. Acknowledging that the statement, ‘evolution is a fact’, is an incorrect assertion has the benefit of focusing our attention back on the goal of science, which is to continually acquire causal understanding through the critical evaluation of our theories and hypotheses. Certainty provides no basis for elevating any evolutionary theory or hypothesis to the level of fact. The characterization and practice of science should be burdened as little as possible with catch phrases that promote misunderstanding."

In light of this and other philosophical perspectives I am familiar with (from Popper to Gould), I disagree with the lead in this article stating that theory "is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences." That is a highly unfortunate distortion of the science.Thompsma (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma, if I understand you correctly, your problem is with the ubject of the sentence in lead, not the predicate. The predicate is a typical definition of a scientific theory. I think your problem is with using the word "Evolution" as the name of the theory.

• I think you need to understand that most reades of WP use the word "Evolution" to refer to a couple of things, one of them being a shorthand for, minimally, "Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection" and probably also "the Modern Synthesis."

• I think that you make an important and constructive point that they are using this word for a larger number of theories, none of which are actually named "Evolution."

I think that there should be some way to rewrite the introduction to acommodate both points. perhaps in the lead a sentence saying that among the general public "Evolution" often refers to a wide number of theories" and then if not in the lead then somewhere in the body, a paragrah nameing the dominant theories with the links to their proper articles.

As I read it, this article is not really trying to make claims about the word "evolution." It is trying (1) to explain to reads what scientists mean by "theory," and (2) to explain why it is that scientists see facts and theories in terms of their relationship to one another, which is quite different from the way that non-scientists see facts and opinions as different, and usually as opposed (and then, since theories are not "facts," identify theories as "opinions"). If i am right, any change to this article that helps it better explain these two points will be welcome by virtually all the people who watch it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I object to the statement that a theory is "an established scientific model...", which it is not. A model can be used to frame portions of and test a theory, but it is not the theory. For example, in the neutral theory of evolution you might assume a poison generating function for probabilities of survival and lineage extinction. Or you could use Tajima's D as a model for nucleotide substitution. Those are statistical models that state the null-hypothesis for testing of patterns that diverge from the expected (e.g., p > 0.05). The theory is something quite different and it is definitely not something that is established, it changes regularly. The lead also says evolution is A theory - that is not correct. "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call the "world": to rationalize, to explain, and to master it." (Karl Popper, 1959 )

This paper can help on the concept of theory: "Contrary to what once I thought, scientific progress did not consist simply in observing, in accumulating experimental facts and drawing up a theory from them." Edward Wilson defines theory in Conscilience suggesting that theories can be quite deceptive, which is why they necessarily spawn hypotheses. Theory is a product of informed imagination, it is partial, and provisional - Darwin's pangenesis, for example, versus Mendelian inheritance. Both are theories and may or may not be supported by the evidence. It may sound unusual to say that Mendelian inheritance may not be supported by the evidence, but it was probably unusual to discover that Ptolemy's theory was wrong because the math was able to predict the movement of various celestial bodies. Ptolemy's theory was wrong, yet it was supported by the predictive evidence. Theories are empirical creatures, "funeral by funeral, theory advances."

Fitzhugh (2007) states unequivocally that evolution cannot be both fact and theory - not the term, but the science itself. Some may debate this. Gould, for example, never said evolution as a fact and a theory - the title of the paper was evolution as fact and theory. This means that there is fact and theory in evolution, there are many theories. The Fitzhugh (2007) paper says that it cannot be both A theory and A fact, but it might be possible to interpret evolution as a fact, but not A theory. Moreover, the lead also suggests that there are two kinds of facts - this is also misleading and I would like to see the literature that supports this. Here is a position on facts and hypotheses that may help to clarify some of the misconceptions:

• "Axioms may take two forms, conventions and hypotheses. Conventions are taken as true (not testable) and are to be avoided. Hypotheses which occupy highest levels of universality within a particular theoretical system are termed the axioms of that system. Hypotheses at a lower level of universality are simply termed hypotheses. It is important to note that Popper conceives of observations as low level hypotheses, not as facts, because he maintains that observations exist only as interpretations of the facts of nature in light of present theories, not as the facts of nature themselves (Popper, 1968b, p. 107)."

Popper (1968b) as cited refers to the following. The lead introduces facts and theories as axioms of the conventional sort (i.e., "it is an established scientific model") and that should be avoided. The two definitions of fact are exactly the kinds of definitions that Fitzhugh (2007) says should be avoided, because they present "the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty."Thompsma (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you agree with me that there are many theories, and also that theory is different from fact. "Model" is one definition; you present a broader definition that I like but is too long to put in the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes...there are many theories. The lead sentence: "Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences." - is incorrect. Evolution is not A theory. If you read Gould's paper that kinda spawned this whole fact and theory thing - the title is evolution as fact and theory. I think people have taken this to mean that it is both a fact and a theory, but that is not what is meant. It means that descent with modification is a fact in the broadest sense or meaning of evolution, but there are many other facts within evolution. Evolution is not a theory, but there is a lot of theory in evolution. So when creationists say evolution is only a theory, they are wrong because it is not only a theory - it is many.Thompsma (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I took a closer look at Gould's paper on evolution as fact and theory and he does state that evolution is A theory, but when you read closer he is referring to Darwin's theory of evolution while acknowledging that there are other theories, such as the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Hence, Gould is difficult to interpret in this regard - he is using a sleight of hand approach in his language, whereas Fitzhugh (2007) gives a clearer picture that evolution is not A theory, which is in agreement with Gould's essay but not his choice of words. Others have said the evolution is A theory (e.g., , ), but they qualify that by explaining what theory they are referring too or by stating the evolution is a theory in the most general sense. Gregory (2008), for example, states: "That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it." - However, this is not correctThis suggests a lumping of theories into a whole, because there is not a single framework to account for it, but several - including natural selection, neutral drift, punctuated equilibrium, and so on. I recommend following the advise of Fitzhugh (2007) and Bock (2007) that facts and theories are "best kept strictly separated". "In most of the statements that evolution is a "scientific fact", the author actually meant that historical evolutionary theory (= the general notion that living organisms descended with modifications from a common ancestor) is so exceedingly well tested (= well corroborated, Popper 1959; 1968: 32–34) that it can for all intense purposes be accepted as factual. However, it is still better to state that historical evolutionary theory is an exceedingly well corroborated theory and that massive counter tests supported by strong empirical objective observations are needed to disprove it. Facts, as used in science, are quite different from theories and the two are best kept strictly separated."

How should this "paradox" be resolved in this article? Some authors claim evolution is A theory (implicit in their understanding that there are many sub-theories on the theme of descent with modification) where other authors claim that evolution is not A theory, but a collection of theories and that it is best not to confuse or conflate fact and theory under a single heading. All this said, the current article leads to an even greater confusion because it offers a mixture of ideas that are inconsistent with the literature in specific and general terms. A clean-up is needed and I may start to tackle this issue.Thompsma (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lead

The current lead breaks with tradition by inserting in a bunch of references at the outset. I would like to propose the following rough sketch for starters - hoping to solicit some assistance and discussion:

• Evolution as theory and fact refers to philosophical status of evolution within the sciences. The statement often appears in response and to clarify misconceptions about evolution, namely in response to creationist movements stating that "evolution is only a theory". In this context, the word theory uses the vernacular meaning of theory as an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation with the intent to discredit the status of evolution. Evolution as theory, however, refers to the proper scientific (as opposed to the vernacular or metaphysical) meaning of theory. In its scientific context, theory has a more complex semantics. A theory generally refers to a well informed scientific construct of ideas or a body of interrelated facts that systematically organizes thought into a coherent and mechanistic model for generating and explaining hypotheses. Theories provide cause-effect statements of relation. A scientific fact is not a statement of certainty, it is an observation or explanation that can be publicly verified.

• Some researchers claim that evolution is not a theory, but a compendium of theories. Evolution is a theory in the sense that it falls into a single category of well-supported accounts that explain common descent with modification. Evolution is a fact in the sense that there is no other explanation that can account for the diversity of life and its history on this planet.Thompsma (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  What is the problem? The proposal is too verbose. As the proposal acknowledges, this article is to cover a specific case, namely creationist literature, and terms like "philosophical status" are unhelpful. The second para is out of place here: no one reading this article cares if there is one theory or a compendium of theories (except that befuddled readers would interpret "compendium" as suggesting that the 99% core understanding of evolution is somehow in doubt). Of course those working in the field argue incessantly about details, but in an article like this, it is the core of evolutionary theory that is in question. Text like "A scientific fact is not a statement of certainty" is 100% accurate, but also quite misleading. If anything is known, it is known that evolution is "true". Tomorrow, apples might start falling upwards, but meanwhile gravity is a fact. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  It is just a beginning and as I stated - a rough sketch. This is a complex topic and so I hope we can scan from the literature the necessary information and then simplify. Building on the material above and simplifying the material - I have created the following sketch:

Break in the proposal

This is difficult to write in light of the paper by : "While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions." (Fitzhugh, 2007) Read the paper to understand where he is going with the philosophy of fact as it refers to evolution. It is now wrong to suggest that there is a scientific consensus that evolution is a fact.Thompsma (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your link is a letter to the editor, and a primary source with respect to the status of Evolution. I'm not convinced it is, itself, enough to overturn every other source we have in this article which makes clear that Evolution is both a theory and fact. I don't have the time now to read through and critique your proposal; I'm simply responding to your last claim regarding the scientific consensus. Like Johnuniq, I'm unclear on what problem you're attempting to address. Could you clarify? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That link provides citations to several other peer-reviewed scientific papers that discuss the nature and philosophy of evolution as science. Bock (2007), for example, agrees with Fitzhugh (2007) that evolution is not a theory and others of historical note have made the same claim (e.g., ). I clarify some of my concerns above. The current lead contains a lot of misinformation on fact and theory and presents the scientific endeavor as one that is seeking certainty through fact, which is not what the philosophy nor the scientists themselves are saying. First mistake on theory is that it: "is an established scientific model". This is false, because evolutionary theories can and are launched quite regularly, it is not just a model, and established implies general acceptance where many theories are questionable yet theoretical in the proper scientific meaning of the term. Second mistake I see: "they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact"" - I'd like to see the citation on this and the two definitions of fact are "loosey goosey" on the fly interpretations that do not appear in the referenced source . The sketch of a proposal I have put together can be backed up by WP:V and I will be adding in the citations as requested or in the body of the text as I get to that part.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm following up on some of the secondary sources. I agree that the Fitzhugh (2007) as a primary literature source cannot overturn every other source and this is not my intent. There are, of course, semantic issues and debates over what constitutes a primary v. secondary source of reference and I am not particularly partisan to this debate in wikipedia. It is true the Fitzhugh (2007) has some substantial things to say about fact and theory in evolution that can assist in our understanding. I visited and read through the Laurence Moran article on Talk origins , and agree with what he has written. I disagree with Fitzhugh (2007) that evolution is not a fact (he isn't saying it isn't true, but using a nuanced argument on fact), but I agree with Fitzhugh (2007) and Bock (2007) that it is not A theory. My lead is an attempt to take these and other papers into consideration from both primary and secondary sources (whatever that may be).Thompsma (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed the concerns that I raised above. The main point is that this is not the place for a scholarly discourse on the status of evolution. The only reason this article exists is to address the commonly used descriptions of "evolution is a theory" or "evolution is a fact". I'm not sure where you propose the above text should be used, but clearly it can't go in the lead (see WP:LEAD), and I'm not sure that it would be helpful anywhere in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Spreading misinformation that cannot be backed up by WP:V is not helpful. Please provide links to articles that support the definitions of fact that appear in the current lead - because I can't find them. Your claim that "this is not the place for a scholarly discourse on the status of evolution" is in stark contrast to the very nature of the title of this article: "evolution as theory and fact". If fact and theory is not a scholarly discourse on the subject of evolution, then what is it? The purpose is to provide an accurate or encyclopaedic portrayal of this scholarly topic using reliable sources and text that can be verified and understood by the public at large. The current lead fails in this respect, primarily due to the misinformation it contains. "You have not addressed the concerns that I raised above" - and you are not helping as I am trying to address your concerns. Instead of trying to outright reject my proposal - I am requesting assistance toward the improvement of the current lead, which contains information that cannot be supported by the standards and guidelines in Misplaced Pages. Of course this is going to be a difficult subject matter to contend with - fact and theory are complex sets of ideas. We need people that have some degree of expertise in this area to present on these topics and to distil them down to a level that can be understood by a general audience. The current lead does not promote an understanding of the science - it leaves the reader more confused before because much of it is made up. There are no citations in the section on theory - none at all and that is a problem. Later, the article claims: ""Proof" of a theory does not exist in natural sciences. Proof only exists in formal sciences, such as mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation." - this goes against the vast amount of literature that contrasts mathematical against experimental proof. Experimental proof is a real phenomena that scientists often refer too (e.g., ).Thompsma (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thompsma is definitely an academic writer and this puts people off. This was encountered debates in the evolution article. However, once people start working with him - the articles improve. I believe that Thompsma has outlined some real concerns in this article and agree that the current lead has some issues. He has not stated that his "proposal" can go into the lead, but is asking for assistance. There are problems:

1. Theory "is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences." - I agree with Thompsma that this is not a definition of theory. Models are an approach to theorizing, but they do not define theory.
2. "Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena." - Are we talking theory or model? First theory is not defined correctly as a model and then this statement give a statement about theory referring to models.
3. "they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact"" - According to whom?
4. "One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations." - This does not describe fact and it calls back to the definition of evolution that was debated in the evolution article and rejected (later appearing in this article: "Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next." This is called the standard definition, but it is not the definition that is generally accepted by evolutionary biologists at large. Several textbooks and papers have rejected this definition as we debated in the main evolution article.
5. "Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists." - This uses some wishy-washy terms: "powerful", "productive", "universally accepted", where more appropriate scientific terms with wikilinks would improve upon the statement.
6. "This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms." - This is an odd sentence.

I agree with Johnuniq that Thompsma's proposal is wordy and overly scholastic, but it is a valid attempt to correct some of the apparent mistakes. I support a re-write of the lead and other improvements to this article that Thompsma has alluded too.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To Johnuniq: In referring to Fitzhugh (2007) stating that evolution is neither fact nor theory, I wasn't suggesting that this be the only article that could trump the other literature. Fitzhugh (2007) is one of the first I have come across to suggest that evolution is not a fact, but to understand this you have to understand where he is going in reference to the inductive, deductive, and abductive modes of inference. Ernst Mayr and others have claimed that evolution is not a theory: "Weismann's attitude toward evolution was close to that of the modern evolutionist, for whom evolution is not a theory but an accepted fact." In the last paragraph of Dobzhansky's (1973) paper, he states: "One of the great thinkers of our age, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: "Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more -it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is." Of course, some scientists, as well as some philosophers and theologians, disagree with some parts of Teilhard's teachings; the acceptance of his world view falls short of universal." If we were to now write that "Biologists universally agree that evolution is a fact (or theory, for that matter)", would I be telling the truth? This can be verified by a secondary resource that meets WP:V, but in light of Fitzhugh (2007) can we be honest and state that this is a universal belief? I think Dobzhansky had the right approach, his world view falls short of universal and this can also be verified in guidance with the principles of Misplaced Pages. Hence, the wording has to be crafted carefully.Thompsma (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph

I will adopt the table procedure (below) that was used in the main evolution article to address the lead article discussion and revisions.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments 1st

Great work Claviclehorn! I tweaked it further in an attempt to make is shorter.Thompsma (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In anticipation of further collaboration, I break the subsequent paragraphs into parts below in the hopes that they can be tweaked and improved upon for a final revision of the lead. I am genuinely concerned about the lack of credibility that this article may generate on the topic of fact and theory in evolutionary science as it currently stands. Hopefully my assistance in here can help to improve on the content.Thompsma (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Comments 2nd

Third paragraph

Comments 3rd

Fourth paragraph

Suggesting that this be taken out of the current lead proposal. End on third above.Thompsma (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments 4th

I need to do some further research on the systematics of evolution. There remains a hub-bub of activity on the Popperian state - is it hypothetical-deductive or hypothetical-abductive? I'm reading some key literature on this to update my understanding of this important component of evolutionary theory.Thompsma (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the fourth paragraph can be left out of the lead and shifted in the body of the article. The first three suffice.Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised proposal in full

I have taken the proposed paragraph sections that have been tweaked above and added in wikilinks and sparing citations that I think would be appropriate for the lead.Thompsma (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Wow!! Thompsma, you have been busy. This lead is superior to the current one and I really have nothing to add. It is short, to the point, and written well. This is well referenced and you have given a fine overview of the literature while also balancing the views on this difficult topic. Impressive work. It would be nice to get see some feedback from other editors that usually comment in this area. Claviclehorn (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I drafted an alternative version. Some of the changes are hopefully self-explanatory, others are explained below:

• A "statement" must have a verb in it, so "evolution as theory and fact" is not a statement.
• We need to be very careful about using the word "experiment", since most evolutionary biology is observational not experimental. It may be best to avoid the word as much as possible.

Joannamasel (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joanna for coming over to view the proposal! My first concern with your counter proposal is: "the second scientific meaning" - who said that there is a second meaning? There are no citations in this paragraph. I have not come across a paper (scientific or philosophical) in my readings that lists the first, second, third, or any other order of meaning on theory. I am curious about experiment in evolutionary biology. Many papers contradict appear contrary to your assessment ("most evolutionary biology is observational not experimental") - perhaps suggesting the experimentation of the hypothetico-deductive sort is less common that desired, but not absent. Some authors have suggested that phylogenetic methods are hypothetico-abductive (still hotly debated, past, present), while others are clearly publishing on evolutionary experiments (e.g., , ). The work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on Darwin’s finches is another classical example of hypothetico-deductive experimentation in action. John Avise and Francisco Ayala have stated: "The actual methods of Darwin, Ayala contends, were far different from this depiction, falling instead squarely within a hypothetico-deductive framework." Niles Eldredge concurs with this assessment: "As someone (e.g., Eldredge 2009) who thinks that Darwin was actually an experimentalist, testing transmutationist ideas (e.g., testing and rejecting Lamarck's predicted “smear” of intergradation as a necessary outcome if transmutation is true) from his earliest days on the Beagle, any overt sign that Darwin explicitly acknowledged his interest in process theory is welcome." Kevin de Quiroz and Steven Poe state: "For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper’s philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context." If Darwin was an experimentalist, then this would not agree with your statement that "most evolutionary biology is observational not experimental". Some of the modern philosophers of science would also disagree on your argument against "evolutionary experimentation" - such as Kitcher and Godfery-Smith - these philosophers contend that what scientist say they are doing is quite different from what they are actually doing and this applies generally across fields. Hence, I would not leave experiment out, because I think that the literature does not support this assertion - it debatable in some circles, but I think that the majority of evolutionary biologists would agree that hypothetico-deductive experimentation is active and alive in evolutionary theory. However, I would like to hear your counterarguments to the contrary.Thompsma (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My other concern is your reference to Dobzhansky's classic paper - my interpretation is that he did not articular the points you are making (or "this concept" - which concept are you referring too?), but the entire purpose of that paper was in response to creationists "only" theory assertion. That point should be front and centre, because that is what this article is about.Thompsma (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many references to "selection theory", "neutral theory", "nearly neutral theory" etc. throughout the evolutionary literature. Because of this, some plurality must be acknowledged as part of the "theory of evolution", even if only within one of my two definitions. Your proposal, with its cause-effect relationships, seems to define theory under my second definition. However, comparisons to gravity, which are made within the main article and which are common in this context, usually revolve around my first definition. Your third paragraph, with its "larger construct of ideas", also leans towards my first definition. The size of the construct of ideas is irrelevant to identity as a theory under my second cause-effect definition. And Dobzhansky's article is based around my first definition, eg "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts-some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole." I essentially paraphrased Dobzhansky when coming up with the wording of my first definition, but am happy to use a direct quote instead if we can make that work.

Experiments and hypothesis-testing are not the same thing. Eg, hypotheses are tested in astronomy, but no experimental manipulations are done. The situation is less extreme in evolutionary biology, with some controlled experiments, but far fewer manipulations than observations. The key component of an experiment is control over the system being studied, not merely control over the observational equipment. Whether or not hypotheses are being tested is irrelevant to whether something is experimental vs. observational.Joannamasel (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joanna - this clarifies some things and I completely agree with your 'plurality' of theory statement that makes evolution as A theory an inherently contradictory statement unless you are making the claim that they are subsumed into a general postulate. I posted this quote earlier, but will repost here because it seems applicable to your argument. MacArthur and Connell (1966):

• "Experiments performed by population biologists indicate another difference between population biological and other branches of science. Anyone familiar with the clear-cut experiments of physiologists and embryologists is likely to think that an experiment involves the actual manipulation of objects by the experimenter. The scientist subjects a nerve to some some chemical stimulus and records the electrical activity further along the nerve, or he pinches a young embryo in to and watches how each half develops. Actually an experiment is only observation motivated by curiosity. The experimenter says to himself: "I wonder what would happen if the embryo were divided in two halves and each half were allowed to develop independently." The only way for him to find the answser is to divide the embryo into halves himself...The population biologist, however, discovers the answer to his question without actively tampering with nature. Because the face of the earth offers a wide variety of conditions, the population biologist can find his experiment already performed for him somewhere."

I realize that the quote is dated, but MacArthur was surely an inspiration!! This also corresponds with a physicists point of view on experimentation - for example, read page 12 in Brian Cox and Jeff Foreshaw's book on E=MC. Experiment as any kind of measurement.Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The MacArthur quote refers to what is known as a natural experiment. This means that while the scientist was not able to exert control over the system, the system just happens to be a certain way such that part of it was exposed to one condition and part to something else, in a manner that was systematic enough for the data to be treated in the same way as if the scientist had been able to manipulate it. In other words, nature did the experiment for you. MacArthur's way of arguing this point, using a natural experiment example rather than observational science in general, backs up the most common definitions of experiment that I could find with a quick google search, that is to say definitions that included a reference to control. Even if you can find a definition that does not include control, we should avoid any use of a word that conflicts with a common or predominant definition of that word. Joannamasel (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Joanna - I knew that he was referring to natural experiment, which is defined quite differently in the Misplaced Pages article. It has been a while since I read that article - but if memory serves correctly the primary focus was on natural experiment as it is used in the social sciences. There are many examples of controls in natural experiments, such as phylogeography. The post-glacial front leading to the Canada-US border or other European examples as Godfrey Hewitt has written about provides a control in the sense that we know exactly where the glacial front went. Hence, we can sample from populations south of the glacial maximum and those north to look at secondary admixture. Anyway, you have given a lot of feedback that I can munch on through the evening. I like where you are going with the proposal to contrast against a commonly understood theory (e.g., gravity) comparing this to evolutionary theory - a common tactic. I hope that you don't mind my critical skepticism as I try to absorb and completely understand your informed points of view so that we can collectively arrive at a final version that is as good as we accomplished in the main evolution article. Much appreciated!!Thompsma (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. Entirely without respect to the sourcing and contents of the current article (which the lead should directly follow), I wanted to comment that I think Joanna's tweaking reads better and is easier to understand. Due to its accessibility, it also appears to more broadly cover the topic than the previous version. I don't mean to put down your version, Thompsma, which is excellent, and quite obviously we need to directly follow the sourcing and article in choosing our content. However, when possible, I think it would be an improvement to use Joanna's briefer wording (or similar) for some of these concepts, as I think it better represents the topic to a layman than getting into very specific, technical distinctions within the lead. Good work to everyone involved. Sorry I can't be a more involved party to these changes. Keep it up! All the best!   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Jess· Δ♥. I got home this evening and re-read Joanna's version more closely and it is better. The experimental hypothetico-deductive debate can be left for parts down in the body of the article if we even need to get into those kinds of details. This was way easier than the main evolution lead!!Thompsma (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - for Joanna's tweak to be entered into the article. I think it is good to go. I read through a third and fourth time and her tweak delivers great clarity on a very difficult topic to cover.Thompsma (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Break - mathematical theory

Reading one more time, I think we should say something that at least alludes to one more common scientific meaning of "theory", namely the mathematical one. I think we should add the following sentence to paragraph 3: "Some evolutionary theories are expressed in the mathematical language of population genetics." Joannamasel (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Joanna. I will go ahead and insert your text into the article.Thompsma (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the new lead, but didn't add your new sentence - had to think of how to incorporate it. It could go as follows:

• In the second scientific meaning, a scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. Some evolutionary theories are expressed in the mathematical language of population genetics. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution in the second scientific sense. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.

However, neutral theory and natural selection are also expressed in the mathematical language of population genetics. They don't really cover the first meaning, because if you used natural selection in those terms, for example, you would be treading into the "adaptationist programme." Hence - something like this?:

• In the second scientific meaning, a scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution in the second scientific sense. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Theories of causal relation (in the second scientific meaning) are regularly framed through mathematical or statistical language, as most notably occurs in population genetics. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.

Thompsma (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Or:

• In the second scientific meaning, a scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution in the second scientific sense. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Theories of causal relation (in the second scientific meaning) are regularly framed through precise language or logic, such as mathematics, statistics, or systematics, as it regularly expressed in population genetics, molecular ecology, and phylogenetics. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.Thompsma (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The third version is not a good alternative - suffering from too much detail. The point is to raise the issues and decide on the best approach. Mathematics, like systematics or statistics, is a formal system of logic that can provide mathematical proof (for example) or statistical proof, such as: "I provide an explicit proof that the ML method of phylogenetic tree estimation...". Is mathematical theory any more important than systematic or statistical theory in evolution? "Theories of causal relation (in the second scientific meaning) can be mathematically, statistically, or systematically proven or assigned probabilities using these formal systems of logic, which is regularly practised in population genetics, molecular ecology, phylogenetics, and other sub-disciplines of evolution."Thompsma (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I read Joanna's recent entry: "the mathematical language of population genetics" - population genetics is not a mathematical language.Thompsma (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose:

• "Theories of causal relation can be further tested using formal systems of logic, such as mathematics, statistics, or systematics, which is regularly practised in population genetics, molecular ecology, phylogenetics, and other sub-disciplines of evolution."Thompsma (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with the wording calling population genetics a mathematical language is peculiar. Otherwise, Joanna has done an great job of taking Thompsma's proposal and distilling the essence of information into an accessible format. I don't see anything wrong with Thompsma's sentence proposal above - but wonder if it could be simplified to just this:

• "Evolutionary theories of causal relation can be further tested using various kinds of formal logic, such as mathematics, statistics, systematics, or cladistics."Claviclehorn (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal logic is not the right term. I insert the proposal in the full paragraph so that we can work this out:

In the second scientific meaning, a scientific theory of evolution describes the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that evolution occurs. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution in the second scientific sense. These and many other causal evolutionary theories are continuously tested using quantitative methods from mathematics, statistics, and systematics to other logical methods, such as parsimony in cladistics. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology. Thompsma (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Including parsimony is a massive broadening, you are now talking about inference methodology rather than about ways of expressing theories regarding causes, which is the focus of this paragraph. This completely changes the meaning, and no longer draws attention to the foundational role of mathematical theories of evolutionary causes in the modern synthesis and professional evolutionary biology. It also moves further from the examples of natural selection and neutral theory. I agree "mathematical language" was not ideal. I will change it to "mathematical framework". This is consistent with common uses of theory in many sciences. Joannamasel (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joannamasel - I support this change in the lead. However, I think there is room in the body of the text to raise other aspects to theory in evolution - notably phylogenetic theory.Thompsma (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proof in "Related concepts and terminology"

The current version states that there is no proof in natural sciences. This contradicts several publications that claim otherwise, including Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", Wilson's "Consilience", and examples can be found in the primary literature (e.g., ). The definitions given for theory and hypothesis are also misleading. Compare the definition given in the text: "Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses" to the one given by the NAS stating that a scientific hypothesis is “a tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested”. The definition on theory is just as disappointing. Taking this into account and reading through some of the evolutionary literature on this topc I hashed out some concepts that might add to the content of this article. I can provide citations - here are links to articles (in addition to those linked above) that were used to put this together: , , , , and . I'm just putting this out here for discussion for possible inclusion of concepts and terms as they apply in the scientific philosophy of evolution:

• (Prelude): Science cannot achieve absolute "certainty" nor is it a continuous march toward an objective truth as the vernacular meaning of the terms "proof" or "fact" might imply. A proof, fact, theory, hypothesis, and other words of science are hobbled by multiple meanings but are used nonetheless in the methods of scientific researchers trying to solve problems. Science has no foresight on the correct solution as it pushes the boundaries of discovery. It is at first a speculation about the natural world where methods are further developed to further our knowledge. Science is a collective enterprise of knowledge and discovery that evolves through experimentation.

The tempo and direction of this evolution is guided largely by the present-day state of scientific understanding, public and private funding agendas, educational practices and objectives, and societal interest, all within the context of the contemporary culture. In practice, researchers also rely on the successes and failures of prior studies to provide clues to identify promising future research directions...Kuhn believed that the way in which humans acquire knowledge inevitably leads to a suite of methodological, philosophical, and even social constructs that guide scientists and their investigations, and he adopted the term "paradigm" to depict these constructs.

• "Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty". In the words of Stephen J. Gould: In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Facts exist both within and outside of science. Facts are "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.
• A "hypothesis" is a tentative statement about nature that can be tested. Hypotheses are specific claims drawn out of theory (see below) that entails natural consequences or deductions should they be true.
• A "scientific test" involves an experiment or a prediction about unobserved facts that can be evaluated by methods of observation. Critical tests are those that locate the evidence, as effects, that has the lowest probability of being observed if the events did not occur. An experiment involves the manipulation of conditions setting the controls, which can be accomplished naturally or contrived in a laboratory.
• "Observations" may seem factual, but some consider them to be "low-level" hypotheses that are interpretations of the "natural truth" in light of present theories.
• "Theories" are universal statements that generate hypotheses, meaning that they necessarily refer to all individuals of consequence across space and time. The common ancestry of life and natural selection are examples that apply universally to all known forms of life. Since it is only possible to refer to a finite number of individuals, it is not possible to absolutely verify their infinite status and so theories must necessarily falsify finite claims. Theories are necessarily speculative at first, "funeral by funeral theory advances", but they are constructed with the specific purpose of being readily falsified if proven wrong. Theories are more general than hypotheses as they refer to multiple experiments and many facts. They are crafted carefully out of the imagination of informed scientists that draw upon their knowledge of the facts during the earlier stages of formulation. Evolution by natural selection and quantum electrodynamics are examples of big theories that have survived the mettle of countless attempts to falsify their claims; their hypotheses have been empirically corroborated since they were first proposed.
• "Proof" of a theory has different meanings in science. Proof exists in formal sciences, such as a mathematical proof where symbolic expressions can represent an infinite sets with precise definitions and outcomes of the terms. Proof has other meanings stemming from its Latin roots meaning to test. In this sense a proof is a convincing explanation or a verifiable demonstration of the facts usually involving evidence stemming from carefully controlled experiments. The consilience of inductions (see below) is an example of a proof that Charles Darwin used in his natural science experiments. Darwin's research pointed to the coordination of so many pieces of evidence that no other configuration other than his theory could offer a conceivable causal explanation of the facts. In this way natural selection and common ancestry has been proven. Natural selection and other evolutionary theories, such as the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, are also represented in various mathematical proofs.
• "Corroboration" is a measure of degrees of belief in a hypotheses. Hypotheses that have withstood testing and have yet to be falsified are not verified, proven, or truth but corroborated. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation. There is no firm or universal truth in science, but scientists believe that some theories are true because they have proven reliable. Axioms taken as firm truth (not testable) are avoided in science. The second form of an axiom is the hypotheses.
• "Inference" is a way of reaching a conclusion and can be achieved using various logical methods, such as the inductive, deductive, abductive, and consilience methods. The inductivist gathers empirical facts and observations and draws conclusions from them. The deductivist launches predictions to reach conclusions that are logically entailed in the premise, drawing knowledge from the general to test the specifics. The abductivist seeks causal explanations drawing conclusions from laws of probability and principles of parsimony. The consilience of inductions is the coincidence of consequences inferred from more than one class of facts from multiple experiments bearing on a single causal explanation. These and other methods of inference are found in evolutionary science and entail proof of theory, such as a deductive proof.Thompsma (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recent example of proof by experiment in a BBC article on neutrino's travelling faster than the speed of light!! "We didn't think they were, and now we have the proof," he told BBC News."Thompsma (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks interesting - it could be put into paragraph form and I would like to see it inserted into the article. I would contest the following: "The common ancestry of life and natural selection are examples that apply universally to all known forms of life." This is a bit of an over simplification of the theory of NS. This depends on how you view the theory of NS - because stated as such it becomes a tautology. However: "In the past three decades the concept of a theory in science has undergone a transformation. Now a theory is thought of more and more as a model that purports to depict accurately the structure of a designated system in nature, rather than as a true or false universal statement." However, you can say that NS applies to populations rather than all known forms of life.Claviclehorn (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Undid revision to H-W theory

I undid the recent deletions that Joannamasel made to the added paragraph on the H-W theory that was recently added. The reason for the deletion by Joannamasel was stated as follows:

• "→Theory: H-W is neither a theory of evolution (it is a theory of stasis), nor a null model to test for evolution (it is a null model to test for population structure). Neutral theory is the closest evolution gets to a (very flawed) null model.)"

The cited paper for that paragraph in Nature Scitables - the Nature Education project, contradicts Joannamasel's rational and states:

• "Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time. When one or more of these forces are acting in a population, the population violates the Hardy-Weinberg assumptions, and evolution occurs. The Hardy-Weinberg Theorem thus provides a null model for the study of evolution, and the focus of population genetics is to understand the consequences of violating these assumptions."

Hence, I feel justified in my action. However, I made some slight revisions in light of Joannamasel's concerns and will continue working on this. However, I do not think it is fair for someone to outright delete cited material without raising the concerns in the discussion pages first. This gives everyone an opportunity to discuss the matter.Thompsma (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hardy-Weinberg content is incorrect

The Hardy-Weinberg principle does not "calculate an expected frequency distribution of alleles". Given an allele frequency, it calculates an expected set of genotype frequencies. This is rather different. H-W makes no prediction whatsoever about allele frequencies, which it treats as parameters p and q that can take any value. H-W is not a null model for testing evolution. It is a null model for the absence of population structure. Use in the way cited would need to verified by more authoritative sources: the cited source is a very light and general teaching resource, with plenty of ambiguity and no details. For accurate details on H-W, please see Warren Ewens' "Mathematical Population Genetics" 2004, this monograph is an authoritative source. The details on H-W can be found on pages 2-6. Joannamasel (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked kindly for you to please give this time and to discuss the matter in here without making rash decisions and deleting work that was cited. I'm willing to address your concerns, but please do not delete the material that has been added until we have an opportunity to resolve our differences here. Thank you.Thompsma (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think there was a refresh issue, when I looked at the talk page after your reversion your section on H-W did not appear for me. To summarise the authoratitive source, Ewens states that H-W has significance in 2 ways. One is historical, as a solution to the vexing problems arising from the alternative theory of blending inheritance. The other is as a mathematical convenience of needing 1 parameter p rather than 2 parameters p and F (the inbreeding coefficient) when working with diploid replicator equations. The third way is to test for population structure. It only takes a single round of random mating, with or without violations of the other 4 assumptions, for the genotype frequencies to reach the proportions p^2 2pq and q^2.Joannamasel (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Genotypes is not the only issue. The source you cite has a cursor-hover definition of "model" that is abstract rather than statistical. You have no source showing the use of H-W as a statistical model, and you will not find one other than for use in testing population structure / assortative mating, because H-W is not used in the ways you describe. Your text goes into all kinds of details not present in your cited source, and so your text does not meet WP:V. Joannamasel (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Joannamasel - if you can give me another day I'll work on this and will get it cleaned up. Of course I am using other sources to put this together and trying to balance the wording so that it can be simplified for a general audience. In doing so I may have made a few errors. I'll read through my sources to work this through. I think that the H-W theorem is a useful example - but might be convinced otherwise. It certainly relates to theory of evolution in context of random mating, which is why I added it as an example of how theory can be used for testing evolutionary patterns.Thompsma (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize that H-W is not equivalent to the theory of evolution. However, I'm taking the approach that Mark Ridley in his evolution textbook follows and using H-W as an example of a theory in evolution. I think it helps to explain how theory works, that there is more to evolution than a single theory, and how the theory developed after Darwin. "The Hardy-Weinberg theorem is important conceptually, historically, in practical research, and in the workings of theoretical models." (Ridley, 2004, 3rd ed. p. 103) I realize that you Joannamasel may have a different conception or scheme on model - it is one of the more difficult terms to contend with in its multiple uses and meanings in the scientific literature. If written properly, however, I think we can use this important theorem to our advantage as a means to show evolution as theory (not as "a" theory). Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The material in the article still contains multiple incorrect statements. Eg, "gene frequencies" is incorrectly used instead of "genotype frequencies". As another eg, H-W genotype frequencies are not a null hypothesis to test for drift: drift == sampling errors, which are the very definition of what a statistical test allows for. Yes, H-W is important historically and in the workings of theoretical models, but neither of those two are described in the current text. The current text needs both to be accurate (it is not) and to illuminate the role of theory. I still think the best thing to do is delete it. If you want a null hypothesis example, use neutral theory instead. I will have a brief go at rewriting, but if that fails, deletion of inaccurate an inadequately sourced material is the default outcome. Joannamasel (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have spent the time fixing the text - but I'm happy with the recent changes that you had made. Of course the text needs to be accurate - but in future, please give editors time to work through the material before getting overly concerned about the mistakes. Misplaced Pages is not an instant fix. Scan around and look at some of the other articles on evolution. Most of them contain a lot of garbage material. This article and the main evolution article are cases in point. The text is evolving through edits and it goes through review processes where these things get ironed out. Thanks for your input.Thompsma (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As an original contributor to a lot of this article I broadly welcome the recent changes. I do have some criticisms though. I was never so happy with saying a theory is defined as being 'established' even though I can plenty of references for this. Because I can also find the words 'new theory' together in scientific literature which contradicts this idea. So I welcome the change here but I think the article is slightly too long now, and the comparison with gravity (a paragraph which has been in for years) is not and never was really helpful. I would say the Hardy-Weinberg piece is not really relevant and kind of off-topic whether correct or not.

But my problem is this: it is sentence in the opening 'The statement is framed to clarify misconceptions about the philosophy of evolution primarily in response to creationist statements that "evolution is only a theory". It is true that this is sometimes the case, but it is also the true that the statement is often put out to differentiate evolution in the sense of 'directly' observable changes from something which is more wide reaching in terms of mechanism, explanatory power, causality, common ancestry etc. The second usage has plenty of quotes to back it up and applies even when no creationists (or anyone else who has misconceptions about 'theory') are around). — Axel147 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course removing 'established' as a built-in part of of the definition of 'theory' which is the honest thing to do does dilute the argument that theory is used one way scientists and a different way by laypeople. — Axel147 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Authors must never lose sight of the fact that the conundrum that some authors say 'evolution is fact and theory' while others say it is 'fact not theory' can be solved in 2 ways: one is that the same proposition can be both a theory (in the sense of it's explanatory and predictive power, ability to link other facts) and a fact (in sense of being overwhelmingly supported by evidence in its own right). The other way to solve the conundrum is to identify 2 different meanings for evolution: one involving more directly observable changes and one embracing things such as speciation, common ancestry. The challenge for the authors is to give these 2 answers appropraiate balance. — Axel147 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a very constructive point.

I would just add that I think it is equally important to make clear that for scientists facts and theories are not in opposition but rather exist in relation one to the other. Many non-scientists think of facts as opposed to theories .... this in part is because they do not understand what we mean by "theory" (they think it means opinion or value judgement) but it also reflects a misunderstanding of what a "fact" is. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree Slrubenstein. One aspect to this that makes it difficult is that theory has different meanings even in science and this changes over time. It can refer to a general class of ideas and as Claviclehorn indicated above: "In the past three decades the concept of a theory in science has undergone a transformation. Now a theory is thought of more and more as a model that purports to depict accurately the structure of a designated system in nature, rather than as a true or false universal statement." I don't know if I entirely agree with that quote, but it does indicate that the idea is itself evolving. People often have a hard time accepting that science lacks certainty when they often turn to it for that very reason. I agree with the points that Axel147 has raised with respect to the statement about clarifying misconceptions "sometimes" and will change the wording to take this feedback into context. I concur that the gravity paragraph is a distraction and I would vote for its deletion. The H-W piece that I put in was a similar distraction, but I did have plans to work on that text to make it more relevant. However, this was fixed by Joanna and I like what she has done.Thompsma (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing paragraph comparing evolution to gravity

I would like to put forward a vote on removing the paragraph on "Evolution compared with gravity". It does not seem relevant enough. Some of the cited material and information could be transferred, but I would like to take a vote straw poll on removal with discussion to see if we can reach consensus.Thompsma (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• SupportThompsma (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal for reasons I outlined above. Some of the material can be merged.Thompsma (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• SupportClaviclehorn (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• We don't vote Instead we seek consensus. I'll revert any change that arises from a vote and not from a full discussion with a consensus. OrangeMarlin 00:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the link to WP:VOTE it states that this kind of technique can be used for consensus building. Perhaps I should have used different term other than vote - like let's take a poll or see how others feel about this. Others are free to discuss.Thompsma (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to address your concern OrangeMarlin Are the changes satisfactory??Thompsma (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the fuck would you copy my signature and put it in your statement? It appears like I'm saying it. Otherwise all votes are bogus. Changing the verbiage is just a lame attempt to get around the guideline. Do what you please. I have a revert button handy. OrangeMarlin 04:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin - please watch your language in here. Thompsma is a notable contributor in these articles and it is common practice to copy user names to refer to the person who is making the statement. Your comments are totally inappropriate.Claviclehorn (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FUCK. So I can use whatever fucking language I want to fucking use at any fucking point in fucking time. Thompsona used my sig in his comment which was totally fucking confusing to me and other editors. See below.OrangeMarlin 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If it IS common practice, it needs to stop. That use of Orangemarlin's sig DID confuse me. That Thompsma has been around for a long time tells me that he should know better. Just doing something because it's been done it before NEVER makes it right. HiLo48 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a rule on this? I've been contributing in here for four or five years - I practically wrote the entire ecology article from start to finish and never have I encountered this backlash. Hundreds of editors I have interacted with have adopted this practice and I've seen it used elsewhere. Why would it be offensive - I was merely trying to refer to OrgangeMarlin the way I thought was proper and the way that I thought OrangeMarlin would like to be referred? Certainly the rude backlash was uncalled for. As Claviclehorn stated we must Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. I don't want to get into a squabble - I'll leave it at this to explain my intent. I want to focus on the content of the article, which is what really interests me.Thompsma (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what article you've written or not. I've written several FA, GA and DYK articles, and I don't brag about them at all. So moving on, putting my signature in your comment was totally confusing. But obviously you think it helps the discussion, and it was pointed out that it was confusing. But who cares, it's not relevant. The "rude backlash" was for a creationist POV pushing by doing two things: asking for a vote. And deleting a relevant section that debunks the silliness of creationist arguments. OrangeMarlin 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bragging OrangeMarlin - I am pointing out that I have had experience in here and your brutish behaviour is the first I have encountered with respect to this issue. Totally inappropriate, dysfunctional, and not even relevant. Swearing at other editors over such trivial matters sends a clear signal on your behaviour and way of thinking.Thompsma (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is totally relevant. I haven't seen a real reason for removing it. Does it weaken the case of creationists? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Totally relevant, but we should, of course, have a vote because one person doesn't get why it's there. OrangeMarlin 04:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's grumpiness is soundly based: anyone who spends time in the drama sections of Misplaced Pages understands that votes count for nothing, and are never used as the first step towards a proposal to alter an article. Any philosophical objections against wording in the article need to be balanced by knowledge of the limited context for the topic of this article (namely, evolution vs. creationism). Scrap the vote and explain why the section in question is not relevant to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq - it is not grumpiness - it is rude and inappropriate behaviour that should be flagged. It goes against Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. As Thompsma corrected - this was not about votes, it was intended to raise the discussion to see where others stand on this issue. Orangemarlin's behaviour should not be welcomed nor encouraged.Claviclehorn (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stick to the points dude. Why the creationist POV-pushing here? Explain it. OrangeMarlin 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What?? Nobody is doing a creationist POV-pushing - that is absurd!! Claviclehorn is a great editor and has contributed to the topic of evolution professionally. I suggest you check in to see the work that Claviclehorn has done on this topic elsewhere - definitely not a creationist. This is delusional.Thompsma (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• It appears to be a cogent comparison, that has been made by a number of reliable sources, so I can see no reason for its removal. Are there any educators of science that are saying that it's a bad/confusing/etc comparison? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the "gravity" vs. "evolution" analogy is relevant to this article, and I see no reason to remove it. It is covered by multiple reliable sources. Admittedly that is a necessary rather than sufficient criteria for inclusion. But the whole purpose of this article is to explicate what is meant by the words "theory", "evolution" and "fact", and as such, the comparison with gravity is pertinent. The section could, of course, be rewritten for further clarity, but that's a perennial problem with every article. Is there a reason to remove it more specific than "It does not seem relevant enough"? Gabbe (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is about removing the analogy from the article, it is about removing the section. As Thompsma stated from the outset: "Some of the cited material and information could be transferred." The information in that section can be merged into other parts and this seems reasonable. Unless people can provide WP:V sources that make this comparison notable enough - it does not seem reasonable for it to have it's own sub-section in this article.Claviclehorn (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow - I am totally surprised by the backlash from Orangemarlin and how this has turned out. The approach adopted here has been used numerous times in the main evolution article without dispute. I've been in here for years and have copied other user names to refer to them directly without quarrel. Many others have shared in this practice. Moreover, taking a straw poll on the issues is something that has also been used in the main evolution article and in other science articles where I have contributed. This is the first time I have encountered anger over such a thing. I never said nobody couldn't discuss the matter. In fact, it seems that my post has served its purpose - we are here discussing the issue. Now, instead of wasting our time bickering about this nonsense, let's all get along and deal with the content.

As Claviclehorn stated - I am not suggesting an outright delete. The material in that paragraph can be integrated elsewhere. The Dobzhansky reference to "Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" is particularly noteworthy. Regardless if this stays or not, it is unusual where this section is placed in relation to the structure of the article. It seems applicable to "Related concepts and terminology" - gravity is a related concept. This article has a tendency to bullet items and does a lot of quote mining. Is this a good practice? Creationists love quote mining - taking things out of context. Compare this change, for example - with half a quote in place, the meaning was lost and it sounded like Muller was not in support of evolution. A paragraph essay format would be an improvement.Thompsma (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well let's get a lot clearer about exactly what this proposal IS about. Where will it be transferred to? HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The source, "Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path", compares gravity and evolution. Since the connection is made in serious writing, we would need an argument to remove it from the article. TFD (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the proposal

Having an entire section on "Evolution compared with gravity" as it is currently written does not seem appropriate. There is one citation that gives this comparison - as noted above, but does this warrant an entire section devoted to this? Perhaps. The proposal is to take the information in that paragraph and integrate it into the text elsewhere. However, I would also be open to improving that section if we can find other sources to make it more comprehensive. The Gregory reference also refers to Path - should we open a new section on "Evolution as path"?? How notable is this? Certainly evolution is as much a fact as gravity is a common retort I have heard. Evolution as path - not so much. The questions being raised here - should there be an entire section devoted to this heading, or should the content of this section be integrated elsewhere? We can call this proposal 1 - retain, and proposal 2 - merge/integrate. I hope this helps.Thompsma (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is only one citation in that paragraph that refers to the gravity issue. The second paragraph is not cited and encroaches into WP:OR. The third paragraph is about observing evolution - which seems more relevant and I think is the actual topic at hand. Gravity is something that everyone is readily familiar with - so being able to witness something directly makes it more believable. This seems to be the comparison that is being made or implied. The last paragraph in the gravity section is just fluff.Thompsma (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No one wants the change. Drop it. OrangeMarlin 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not true - there are three editors that are seeing the change. Just saying you want someone to drop an issue that you find objectionable is not a way forward. You are being unreasonable.Thompsma (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree Thompsma - what is Organgemarlin's problem here? The points Thompsma raises are legit and Thompsma has also made some great contributions to this article. Axel147, myself, and Thompsma outlined issues with this section on gravity. Hence, your comment that no one wants the change is false. Thompsma is making constructive comments, you are making obstructive comments. Get with the game or go post elsewhere and stop being rude. We're adults here - at least I think we are.Claviclehorn (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving onto the relevant topic - this article talks about student perspectives on evolution with a small reference to gravity: "Students seemed to differentiate between degrees of confidence in some theories depending on whether they can be proven or not...So for this student some theories are proven and some are not—kinetic theory and Newton’s laws have been tested and applied; relativity and evolution are not really scientific in the sense that they do not meet the same rigorous criteria of testing. Another student contrasted the law of gravitation (gravity is there—conflating the law with the phenomenon—also noted in Brickhouse et al., 2002) with the theory of evolution (evolution is postulated). This distinction was an unsuccessful attempt by the student to demonstrate what he perceived to be a critical epistemological difference between laws and theories." The Brickhouse et al. (2002) citation: Brickhouse, N., Dagher, Z., Letts, W., & Shipman, H. (2002). Evidence and warrants for belief in a college astronomy course. Science and Education, 11, 573–588. --> seems to be the focus that Thompsma has discussed. This is not so much about gravity, but the nature of belief in relation to degrees of confidence relative to personal experience. I'm having a difficult time tracing down other WP:V sources that discuss the gravity v. evolutionary theory. This paper makes note of the following: "Examples of N-D Es include the law of gravity, diastrophism, and the full statement of natural selection (nonrandom, differential survival and reproduction of organisms)." N-D E = nomological-deductive explanations. This paper states: "Scientists across disciplines consider the principles of evolutionary biology to be as fundamental to our understanding of natural processes as the principle of gravity." Coyne's book makes the comparison in several places as well. These citations could be integrated, but first we need to make a decision on this topic. Should it be about gravity, or should it be about comparing evolution to other scientific theories in general while just using gravity as one example?Claviclehorn (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the gravity example dramatically weakens the creationist argument, hence some here wanting it removed. But that makes it a good reason for it to stay. I still haven't seen a reason for its removal. HiLo48 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48 - please read the proposal and discussion that has followed. Nobody has said to remove the gravity example, we are talking about ways to integrate this into the rest of the text or to improve on the section. I am a scientist who has published peer-reviewed articles on evolution. I have contributed to the main evolution article for years and teach courses on evolution at my university. Hence, you are reading the wrong message into this to suggest that I or anyone else who has commented on this issue that we are trying to remove this to favour a creationist stance. My goal is to improve on the content for the purpose of public outreach on this important topic. I suggest that others read through the paragraph with a critical eye and ask themselves if it is really doing a service. It is not an engaging paragraph, it isn't well cited, nor is it particularly well written. I like some of the suggestions that Claviclehorn has given with links to relevant articles. It seems that people are talking past one another on this issue - so I'm going to take a step back, do a re-write on this and will pitch the proposal then.Thompsma (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then stop waffling. I don't want justification for some nebulous change, as this seemingly usefully headed section seemed to turn out to be. Exactly what IS the proposal? (That is not a request for you to justify it. It's request to tell us what it is.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said - please read the post above - the proposal is stated. You need to read first.Thompsma (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No. This section is headed "Clarifying the proposal" but starts off telling us why you think we need to change. Further on there is "...integrate it into the text elsewhere". Where? Then we have "However, I would also be open to improving that section if...." Then you listed several questions. That is NOT a clarification. Maybe it was hidden elsewhere. Maybe I'm confused. But what you are proposing is certainly not obvious to me yet. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat: "The questions being raised here - (1) should there be an entire section devoted to this heading, or (2) should the content of this section be integrated elsewhere? We can call this proposal (1) - retain, and proposal (2) - merge/integrate." - A preamble is normal practice when putting together a proposal. I apologize if I have not been as clear as you would like, but I am here to help and work on this problem. Please be patient. There is a section in the article called "Related concepts and terminology" --> A sub-section in that part of the article could be created to address theories in general. It seems to me that gravity is a related concept.Thompsma (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the point is (or should be) to compare evolution to gravity. I think the point should be to find an example that is less controversial than evolution, in order to explain our basic points about "theories" and "facts" as terms of art used by scientists to talk about how we think about the phenomenal world. New strains of flu emerge, we find fossil evidence for animals that share some features with modern birds and other features with dinosaurs, apples fall down and the moon orbits the earth ... these are all stuff one can observe given the right resources. I do not want to compare "evolution" and "gravity" but I do what to point out that a great many readers really do not understand how we use the words "theory" and "fact" and it would be good to give them an uncontroversial example to help them. I am not committed to "gravity," but it has two virtues: first, moast readers think it is a fact i.e. it is highly uncontroversial. Second, physicists are not certain what causes it or even what is the best description given that Newton's and Einstein's descriptions yeild conflicting predictions. I am jjust pointing out ays in which "gravity" is a good example for correcting some popular misconceptions about fact, theory and science. I think we face two questions: should we include such an example in the article? i think so (but we have to be clear we are not comparing evolution and gravity, we are comparing two examples in which what is fact and theory for scientists is not what a great many laypeople think). Second, should the example be gravity? I think it is a useful one but I am very open to alternatives. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Slrubenstein! Great to see you in here. You have captured the point I was trying to get across. Gravity is one example - should there be an entire section comparing gravity, or should the section compare evolution to other theories, such as the big bang, relativity, economic, and atomic theory? It might even be useful to compare it to theories in ecology and biology in general - the theory of the gene (Morgan, T.H. 1917. The theory of the gene. American Naturalist 51: 513-544.). "Shouldn't our students also know how to evaluate other scientific theories, such as general relativity, the atomic theory, and continental drift?" I think the paragraph should be more broadly titled to something like - "Comparative theory" - or "Comparing theories", something of that nature under the section "Related concepts and terminology".Thompsma (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is getting silly and tendentious. This article is debunking one of the great creationist canards...."evolution is only a theory." Wow, didn't know that there was a scientific theory of "economics." But you are missing slrubenstein's singular point. This isn't about gravity, it's about evolution. Gravity is just the easiest to compare. I have no clue what you're going on about with "big bang" etc. Those aren't useful here, because this article is about evolution. And gene theory? IN 1917? Wow. OrangeMarlin 07:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reigning this debate in

Let's take a step back here. Some editors have entered in here swearing for simple misunderstandings and accusing others for being creationist POV-pushers. This is like McCarthyism!! Many of the editors that are trying to contribute here have made lots of contributions in good faith on other evolutionary articles and topics. I suggest we halt this discussion for now. I'll work on a proposal and will come back to this when others have taken a moment to cool off and reconsider their recent posts. Editors must be able to work on these topics in good faith and not be bullied into not making constructive comments by being accused of being a creationist. This is totally unacceptable.Thompsma (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please—no more school teacher commentary. This article is not about the general meaning of "theory"—it is about creationist misunderstandings. Anyone is welcome to propose a draft or to boldly edit. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You state: "This article is not about the general meaning of "theory"—it is about creationist misunderstandings." --> How can you separate the two? The title of the article is about "Evolution as fact and theory" - not "Creationists misunderstandings of Evolutionary theory". By providing a comprehensive explanation of what fact and theory means in context of evolution relative to other scientific facts and theories we can help clarify any misunderstandings. Page 160 of this book on "Defending Evolution" (one aim of this article) talks about using the technique of comparing theory - such as cell theory, plate tectonics, heliocentric theory, and atomic theory of matter and then asking students to justify why they have different rules for one theory over another. This seems like a good strategy and one that Thompsma proposed. A section that addresses these issue and surveys that compare belief in Einstein's theory of relativity (<10% think it is not proven) to Evolution (49% think it is far from proven), for example, can cover the conceptual basis and system of belief of evolution over other scientific theories. Showing the bias is an important part of the controversy that this article can address in a more general section that not only compares evolution to gravity, but evolutionary theory to theories in general.Claviclehorn (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The article wouldn't exist if creationists would quit using dumb fucking statements such as "it's only a theory." I believe that all of the Republican candidates for president use that fucked-up argument. So, Johnuniq is completely correct. This article is about evolution denialism and creationist twisting of science to meet their anti-science beliefs. Yes beliefs. OrangeMarlin 07:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering how to make precisely that point here without upsetting too many people. Noting that you possibly didn't care about that latter point, I'm still delighted to read that post. It depresses me that this modern global encyclopaedia has to constantly battle against backward, ignorant Bible bashers from conservative America. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the more intelligent members of the Creobot crowd (which obviously excludes Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, and others), don't use that canard anymore. If I'm not mistaken, AiG says to not use the "it's only a theory" argument. I'm not going to go to AiG to prove that, because I my computer might blow up if I do.  :) Anyways, in a real encyclopedia, where POV pushers weren't around, this article would be one sentence in a "Social" section of the Evolution article. But, without specifically criticizing Clavicle and Thompson, they haven't been around long enough to see the POV pushing nut jobs. I was around trying to write Intelligent design and Evolution, and this article was necessary because of the constant "vandalizing" by the POV pushing crowd about the "theory" of Evolution. That's why I ignore Clavicle's and Thompson's personal attacks, and stand very strongly against their changes. And I know every real scientist on Misplaced Pages will block changes that make no sense. OrangeMarlin 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that, in the United States at least, one of the significant debates concerning educational policy (specifically, should creationism be a required part of the science education curriculum, is that "evolution is only a theory, not a fact." In this sentence, there is a misconception about what scientists mean by "fact," but there is also a misconception about what scientists mean by "theory," in that many people believe that when scientists call evolution a theory they man it is an opinion on personal belief. When I was in the 10th grade one week in social studies was devoted to the distinction between facts and value judgments, so this is a distinction that is made in other contexts (I think it comes from Weber). This issue is too complex to cover in a section of the Evolution article, which is why it has its own article.

Of course, the other major debate is that ID is a "scientific theory." This particular debate is I believe also covered in its own article. But I think this article is meant to complement the article on ID. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Belief in theory

Instead of comparing evolution with gravity, I propose a section on "Belief in evolutionary theory". This is what this paragraph is really after. I will make my argument and part of this text could be adapted (simplified) into a new section with this title. Why is the theory of gravity example so compelling? Because everyone believes in gravity - I explain further below. This relates to Claviclehorn's recent post on Einstein's theory of relativity vs. evolution. The former is believed true by the general public, while on scientific grounds they are both fact and theory in the way that Mayr defines them:

• "Facts...may be defined as empirical propositions (theories) that have been repeatedly confirmed and never refuted."

Popper would say corroborated instead of confirmed. To Mayr, empirical proposition = theory. Gravity is a great example of an empirical proposition - things drop downward every single time, we are intimately familiar with the empirical nature of gravity which is why so many people believe in it - or as Gregory (2008) put it: "all readers of this article are at least casually familiar". This also relates to the Dobzhansky article that is cited in the current section on gravity. His paper on Drosophila has nothing to do with gravity (btw - further proving my point), but has to do with observing evolution directly, which goes back to the concept of belief. Why do scientist believe evolutionary theory is as good a theory as gravity, Einstein's theory of relativity, the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory while creationists do not? Scientists do not subscribe to subjective prejudice, they examine theory according to observation (=facts & low level hypotheses), experimental evidence (i.e., falsified hypotheses), and if it has proven robust to inference.

To scientists, prior conceptions do not influence degree of belief in one theory over another, whereas this is generally the way the public conceptualizes theory. Creationists are instructed or use their belief to decide on the merit of one theory over another. Scientists are trained to use the abductive, inductive, and hypothetico-deductive tests or methods of inference to falsify and understand theory. Scientists do not put theories onto some imagined scale comparing them from fact to fiction. "And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." Theories are never used by scientists to establish certainty, but for generating hypotheses, for knowledge acquisition and to understand cause effect relations in the world. This applies to physics, chemistry, astonomy, or any branch of the natural sciences as much as it applies to evolution.Thompsma (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would have a problem with the proposed section title -- I've seen far too many creationists take "belief" to mean 'religious belief', and would use such a section as 'evidence' that evolution is a religious belief, requiring 'faith'. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct to say "belief in evolutionary theory"? TFD (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

One does not "believe" in a scientific theory. "Belief in" implies faith or trust or confidence. Science doesn't work on beliefs, but in acceptance or rejection of the results, data, or the theory itself. We accept evolution because of the vast mountain of data supporting it. I'm getting tired of the creationist POV pushing. OrangeMarlin 07:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly is the "philosophy of evolution" mentioned in the lead? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - there are no creationists posting here, please take your delusions elsewhere. Must we wear a badge of scientific allegiance? Your statement that scientists do not believe in things is pure hogwash. The reality is that your behaviour is more in line with the way that creationists address problems - they don't examine the evidence, but dismiss it outright and often resort to name calling, labelling, or any other behaviour they can resort to instead of allowing their views to stand up to scrutiny. Stop behaving like a creationist OrangeMarlin, because this is a scientific discussion we are holding in here. The difference is that scientists are ready and willing to abandon belief, whereas creationists are devoted and taught to hold onto their belief and doctrine:

• ""We believe that punctuational change dominates the history of life: evolution is concentrated in very rapid events of speciation (geologically instantaneous, even if tolerably continuous in ecological time)." (Gould & Eldredge, Paleobiology, 1977)

Are you going to make the claim that Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge are creationists because they "believe" in their theory?? Hmmm?? I can find hundreds of other peer-reviewed scientific articles that talk about scientific belief (for example, ). Scientists are not walking around with empty heads. We are human beings, after all. Thomas Kuhn in his famous book on the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" states: "Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science." The difference is that scientists are ready to abandon belief in light of the evidence. Currently, most scientists believe that Einstein was right and the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. However, if experimental evidence on the speed of neutrino's proves otherwise, the theory will be abandoned and we will re-examine present theory in context of the new discovery. Here are two additional papers to consider for the content in this section: 1) Chinsamy, A., Plagányi. E. (2007) Accepting Evolution. Evolution, 62:248–254, and 2) Williams, J. D. (2009) Belief versus acceptance: Why do people not believe in evolution? BioEssays 31:1255–1262 . Given OrangeMarlin's resort to name calling and adhering to the kind of tactics that creationists use, I would not give much credibility to OrangeMarlin's input on this. In response to TFD's question "Is it correct to say 'belief in evolutionary theory'" - yes, scientists do believe in evolutionary theory.Thompsma (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to Hrafn's fear of using belief in the title, I think science can handle this. We should not shy away from using terms because creationists take belief to mean 'religious belief' in the same way that they think theory is a guess, the purpose of this article is to clarify those misconceptions. I don't believe in shying away from terminology while cowering in a corner for fear of the creationists. We're scientists - we can handle it. There is nothing to fear in an honest disclosure of what scientists are doing. That is the great strength of scientific theory.Thompsma (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thompsa, you are taking advantage of the ambiguous way in which ordinary English words are used. The words fact, theory, belief can be used in different ways. A scienstist may for example find evolution to be the only coherent theory describing past events and predicting future archeological findings, but may believe that Adam was the first man, created by God. See for example, Creationist cosmologies#Appearance of age (light created in transit). TFD (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot tell if this is being done intentionally or unintentionally, but the consequences of all of these suggestions will be the same: weaseling the article to the point where it doesn't make the point it should. TFD...I'm in agreement. OrangeMarlin 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea - change to "Belief in evolution". OrangeMarlin is out of line in suggesting that there are creationists POV pushers in this discussion - a weird distraction. To TFD - Thompsma is NOT taking advantage of the English language, that is just the way language works - words have different meanings. Plus, Thompsma has provided WP:V showing that scientists do hold scientific beliefs. These quote's and papers seem relevant to this discussion:

• "A scientist, like any other human being, frequently holds views that are inconsistent with one another."
• "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions swept away an outmoded, untenable theory of scientific progress and alerted scientists

to the fact that there is more to scientific belief than simply rigorous proof structures. If some of the implications of his ideas about why we believe what we do in science still seem uncomfortable, that can only be a further stimulus to thinking about the nature of scientific knowledge and belief."Claviclehorn (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationists POV pushing attempt to use the English language to conflate real science with their false "beliefs". Period. And Clavicle...spare me your personal attacks. I have NEVER fucking accused you of being a Creationist or a POV pusher. However, your and Thompsma changes may unintentionally assist the creationist POV. If you want me to write in boring platitudes to spare your think skin, then grow a pair, and learn how it works around here. I'm tough. Deal with it. I think you're wrong. Deal with it. Attacking me to make your point is a waste of my fucking time. Engaging my criticism of your changes, well that we can work with. Figure it out. Don't figure it out. Your problem not mine. OrangeMarlin 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So when a meterologist says, "I believe it will rain tomorrow" and a theologian says, "I believe the world will end tomorrow", whey are using the word "believe" in the same way and they could resolve the dispute using using empirical data. TFD (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I too am a little confused by Claviclehorn's commnt. Kuhn's book certainly does not do away with the idea that science includes an accumulation of knowledge about the universe, he simply showed that this process itself has a history. I have no idea what anyone could mean by "the fact that there is more to scientific belief than simply rigorous proof structures." Claviclehorn, can you explain this to me? If anyone achieved this, surely it was Galileo or maybe Descartes, and not Thomas Kuhn. Don't we all learn in high school that "rigorous proof structures" are qualities only of mathematics and logic, and not science, which works by developing models of the universe that are based on and held accountable to (through predictions for example) empirical evidence? Surely, this is what Kuhn believes, right? When a scientist says she believes in a theory, the word "believes in" clearly does not have the same definition as it has when the average person (I exclude for present purposes Mortimer Adler) says she believes in God, or believes in the Bible. Nothink Kuhn wrote suggests that science and religion are comparable or that scientific beliefs are assessed the same way religious beliefs are. Even the major monotheistic religions distinguish between knowledge from revelation versus knowledge from the senses, and claim that they have different criteria. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I am not at all convinced most people believe in Einstein's theory of gravity. I think one can say that with regards to gravity most people are happy to defer to the authority of scientists. But most people do not understand Einstein's theory and I think if pressed would say they belive it only because scientists say it is true. From a sociological point of view, the fascinating puzzle is why they do not have the same attitude concerning the life sciences. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Slr, I think that most people accept the very basic Newtonian theory of gravity, that is, something pulls a smaller object to a larger object. The theory of relativity, of course, is probably outside of a lot of laymen's understanding. I find the sociological point of view also fascinating. I took biology in high school in what I would consider to be a very conservative, religious state. We were taught evolution as if it was a fact of life. Dinosaurs were around millions of years ago. The earth was formed billions of years ago. No arguments. It's a very recent phenomenon, and I also think it has cross from the life sciences into the earth sciences. OrangeMarlin 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - Don't you have a GOP debate to get to? I think I hear Michele Bachmann calling your name - she might need you for something, you better hurry. If you are not going to be helpful, I suggest you leave.Thompsma (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - those were quotes that Claviclehorn supplied with links to the peer-reviewed scientific articles where they were printed - they were not comments by Claviclehorn. The belief in Einstein's theory was based on a study reference in a book that Claviclehorn provided. This study also points to a general belief in gravity, but most don't see gravity as a theory. So even if you disagree with the content, that is inconsequential in terms of threshold for inclusion. There are studies showing that most people do believe that gravity is a fact, but you might be correct that most would not see gravity as a theory.

It was Thomas Kuhn who changed the way that we view science not as advancing knowledge solely on the basis of the scientific method, but that it advances through paradigms and revolutions - many scientific papers and philosophers have made the same kind of commentary. If you read Kuhn's book you will learn that he talks about the way that new theories are assimilated into science leading to a re-assessment of current fact and reconstruction of prior theory, that is the revolution or paradigm shift that his book is about. Kuhn raised the issue of science as a collective venture - networks of theory. Of course Kuhn understood in rigorous proof structures (i.e., the scientific method), but his book demonstrated that the actual practice of science is much more than the scientific method. The fact is that scientist regularly write about their beliefs:

• "For in the most profound of senses, all scientific knowledge is “only a theory”. Religious belief is a matter of revealed truth and is thus (within interpretive limits) unchanging. Scientific belief, on the other hand, is even in principle only valid as long as it can resist attempts to show that it is wrong. Indeed, whereas science as a whole embodies a profound feeling that progress can be made—for otherwise, what is the point of the whole enterprise?—there is no way in which we can make scientific progress unless we can demonstrate that what we now believe is wrong or at least incomplete."Thompsma (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is this - there is sufficient WP:V, actually there are FAR more resources that talk about scientific belief in evolution than there are resources comparing evolution to gravity. My current thesis research focuses on scientific education and psychology - I can provide a lot of studies that look at belief systems in relation to theory. There is lots of literature that can be used to discuss these points in terms of perceptions of belief, surveys, and contrasting this information against the way that scientific belief works in context of evolutionary fact and theory.Thompsma (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1981-05-01). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover. 2 (5): 34–37.
2. ^ National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academy Press. ISBN 0309105862.
3. ^ Dobzhansky, T. (1973). "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (PDF). The American Biology Teacher. 35 (3): 125–129.
4. ^ Evolution vs. Creatinism: An Introduction. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. 2004. p. 298. ISBN 0-520-24650-0.
5. Ayala, f. J. (2009). "Darwin and the scientific method". 106 (S1): 10033–10039. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901404106. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
6. Gregory, T. R. (2008). "Evolution as fact, theory, and path" (PDF). Evolution Education and Outreach. 1: 46–52. doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z.
7. Bock, W. J. (2007). "Explanations in evolutionary theory" (PDF). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 45 (2): 89–103. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00412.x.
8. ^ Fitzhugh, K. (2007). "Fact, theory, test and evolution" (PDF). Zoological Scripta. 37 (1): 109–113. doi::10.1111/j.1463-6409.2007.00308.x. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help)
9. Graham; Dayton, P. K. (2002). "On the Evolution of Ecological Ideas: Paradigms and Scientific Progress" (PDF). Ecology. 83 (6): 1481–1489. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |firs1= ignored (help)

• C-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles