Revision as of 23:03, 5 January 2007 editNsheetz (talk | contribs)539 edits →Distinctions between theory and fact← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:07, 5 January 2007 edit undo199.62.0.252 (talk) →Distinctions between theory and factNext edit → | ||
Line 1,569: | Line 1,569: | ||
I would presume this was removed because it's an unjustified and misleading statement by a nonscientist. Ironically, the citation provided uses the quote as an example of something Reagan said that is completely out of sync with the reality in the scientific community. It has no more place here than any other misleading quip from any other famous person. ] 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | I would presume this was removed because it's an unjustified and misleading statement by a nonscientist. Ironically, the citation provided uses the quote as an example of something Reagan said that is completely out of sync with the reality in the scientific community. It has no more place here than any other misleading quip from any other famous person. ] 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
:Seems to be the perfect quote in a section that is attempting to debunk misunderstandings, then. 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ] |
Revision as of 23:07, 5 January 2007
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.
Skip to table of contents |
IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. Read the FAQ
It's been said already | ||
---|---|---|
Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of evolution by natural selection, and pursuant to Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view policy, this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth. There are many objections to this portrayal, but most of them have already been discussed on this talk page in detail. Please look over the archives (below) before bringing up any of the following objections again! Thank you.
| ||
The article is not neutral. It lacks criticisms of evolution. | Evolution is just a theory
A large number of scientists, and a lot of scientific evidence, oppose evolution.
Miscellaneous objections |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 |
Evolutionary biology Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Spoken Misplaced Pages | ||||
|
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Reply to our vacuous friend
falsifiability is a distinction that philosophers of science use to try to decide what is a science and what is not: Do you know what Ph.D. means?
- Of course I know what a PhD is. I have one and several other graduate degrees from major research universities. Do you know what it means? Why do you not tell me what a PhD is?--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
real scientists do not worry about falsifiability: Really? Therefore, you're not a real scientist? Ph.D.s are not real scientists?
- The fact that you think that PhDs, aside from those specializing in philosophy of science or those fighting creationists, worry about falsifiability, is a sign you do not know what science is. Look in any major science textbook at the professional level. No falsifiability anywhere to be found. Why do you think THAT is? It is as I said above; it is readly built in when the scientific method is used. Falsifiability was "invented" by philosophers of science just in the 1930s. Does this mean that before that, Newton et al were not doing science? No it does not. Their work was already falsifiable, because it was built in. The philosophers just came along later and named it. The legal profession then used it over and over as a method to destroy creationist claims and make creationists look like fools. It is a matter of history. Look it up.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that you think that PhDs, aside from those specializing in philosophy of science or those fighting creationists, worry about falsifiability, is a sign you do not know what science is: Google is your friend: ] 65.73.44.65 06:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
We are getting sucked into tapdancing to the creationist tune here: This is a philosophy of science point, not a creationist point. You already claimed that you used the philosophical point against creationists, and you clearly are not a creationist. You're also trying to avoid with the guilt by association fallacy.
- I did not use it. But evolution defenders have used it. And Judges and lawyers have used falsifiability arguments over and over and over and OVER. Look it up. And what the heck is this guilt by association? I am not a creationist. Never was. I think it is myth. Fine as far as it goes, but more akin to poetry or allegory. It is not science. And even if you try holding your breath until you turn blue, you will not convince me or anyone else that creationism is science. I will believe data. Verified repeatable observations or experiments. By competent authorities. Examined over and over and over. And accepted by the majority of REAL scientists, not bogus pretenders and fakes. If you don't have that, then forget it. --Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- you will not convince me or anyone else that creationism is science: You are confused if you think that a. I believe creationism is science. b. That I am trying to convince anybody else that it is. It is clear that I am skeptical that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is a valid scientific theory using the falsifiable criteria. 65.73.44.65 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
In creation science...: This is an article on evolution, not "creation science" which is also an oxymoron. The falsifiability criticism on the evolutionary origin of species is a philosophy of science criticism. If it is also used by those who deem themselves "creation scientists", if as you assert it is, does not make the criticism invalid.
- Well creation science, as you well know, is the name creationists have tried to adopt to hide the mythological magical supernatural unsupported nature of their beliefs. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you criticize evolution, be prepared to get your own beliefs looked at in the same nature. You are not allowed to put up a sign that says "No trespassing". That is not science. And of course it is used by creation scientists. They want to claim evolution is a religion, which it is not. Look it up.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- You fight for Darwin nearly the same way I fight for my Lord.
- --You believe what he has written without question
- --You quash any attempt to discredit him
- --Evolution is a 100% documented scientific truth, yet you try to spin it as such
- --You have never met him, have never performed any studies yourself, but you take his word as law
- --You have never performed any double blind tests to show that evolution is fact
- --You refuse to acknowledge the cambrian explosion
- --You refuse to acknowledge the lack of intermediary fossils
- --You use semantics and false logic to say the second law of thermodyamics doesn't apply
- --You refuse to acknowledge that gas doesn't clump in a vacuum, which means stars couldn't have formed in the vacuum of space, which means no life on earth
- Sounds like quite a bit of religious zeal to me.
- 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you criticize evolution, be prepared to get your own beliefs looked at in the same nature.: I am not advocating creationism as a science. Nowhere in my posts do I advocate creationism as a science. And I hope that evolutionary origin of species is more than just a belief to you. I am criticizing the notion that the evolutionary origin of species is a scientific theory that meets the falsifiability criteria. 65.73.44.65 06:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
All you need is to have tests you can perform that will show the theory is false.: Exactly right. But don't confuse this with a test that would invalidate a tool that is used to provide evidence for the theory. E.g., falsifying dating techniques would not falsify the theory of evolutionary origin of species. Likewise, showing that a voltmeter is inaccurate would not show that ohms law was incorrect.
- But if you were able to show that all dating techniques were nonsense and the earth was only 5000 years old, which is not long enough for evolution to take place, it would be all over. And the existence of this test means the theory is falsifiable. End of story. Evolution passes the falsifiability test. GAME OVER!--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This has given me an idea for another article: Good. Let's hope you don't used biased comparison like your comparision of the evolutionary origin of species with the law of gravity, while completely ignoring speciation, and the other flaws I already pointed out in your comparison.
- I will be as clear and unbiased as I can be. If that irritates people, then so be it.--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas. By the way, phil, I am not a sockpuppet of Ken. I saw the dispute you had with him, and can deduce from the actions of the admins and from your comments that you think I am him. Contact me via email, and I will proove to you that I am not that person. You have defamed me and caused admins to block my account on very shaky speculation. I hope you think more clearly when you do real science. 74.33.29.35 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- I never claimed you were a sockpuppet of Ken, although the fact that you even know who Ken is is curious. I do not care if you are Ken or not. In fact, if you look at the leadup to the RfC against Ken, I pleaded against banning Ken and giving him another chance. He then proceeded to be obnoxious and burned his bridges. So your proof is irrelevant to me. And I would ask you to again define "real science" and tell me what I am doing that is not real science now?--Filll 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know about Ken because in my ban the reason for the ban was that I was supposedly a sockpuppet of this character. I suppose when you guys cannot participate in an honest debate, it is just easier to make false, secret accusations against those who are pointing out that like creation science, the theory of the evolutionary origin of species does not hold up to the falsifiable test (your ridiculous article not withstanding). Biological evolution that leads to new species is a good story, but it has not been reproduced in the lab, and it has not been observed with living species. It has been inferred in the fossil record, and is akin to astrology, not astronomy. It is clear that many of you treat the theory as a religion, and behave like fanatics, complete with witch trials, ostracization, secret alligations, obfuscation. I am a heretic, according to many of you. 67.139.169.22 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- That is right, we are dishonest and stupid and in a global conspiracy against you. All several million scientists are in on this. Didnt you know? You know every PhD is trained in how to trick people like you. It is part of our secret cult. OOoooh!!! You are so clever, you found us out. We have had a secret society for hundreds of years just to fool you. Look, I seriously know it is impossible to convince you of anything. I would be shocked if you ever changed your mind about anything. It is not in your best interests, after all. Why would you? You cannot be convinced. And this page is not for this kind of discussion, although once in a while useful information comes out. Such as another article or two to continue to make our point. So go ahead and bitch some more, because all that will do is strengthen your opponents, it seems to me. And then you can talk some more about how unfair we are and how stupid we are etc etc. In the meantime, we will actually be continuing to undermine your ridiculous position which is founded on sand. --Filll 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ken, Vacuous Poet, Mr. Sockpuppet, whatever. Here's a fact--you get banned, you come back under another IP Address. Then you register your name. I presume that gets banned, although I don't know and I don't care. You now come back under another IP Address. You bore me, and I hope you realize that you have zero credibility with this group. Note how none of the other Christian/Taliban types have come to your defense or support. Curious. So, in my personal opinion, just by saying you're not a sockpuppet does not mean you aren't. By definition WP:SOCK, you are most definitely one. I'm done with you, and I'm moving on. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think of number of editors have addressed Vacuous poets concerns. I see no value or improvements to be made to the article from this discussion so let us move on. Also Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all. It reminds me of All quiet on the Western front. Let us light candles and sing. Peace on earth and goodwill towards men. Seems this old earth could use some peace.GetAgrippa 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think some have addressed it. However, there is potential value in continuing the conversation. 65.73.44.65 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Wrong! Nothing in this will improve the article. Fill points out that scientist have used this in legal battles against creationist, so obviously it is done. I question the need to bring the subject up, if one knew it had been addressed as a legal issue. The subject needs to be in the creation-evolution controversy article and not in a science related topic. Further it is a philosophical issue and not the hard science needed for the article. Evolution theory is falsifiable in theoretical terms and historically other alternative theories have surfaced to explain evolution. The concerns about speciation were based on naivety. All have been addressed. Let us move on. GetAgrippa 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remember, it was All Quiet for precisely one Christmas, and only on a small part of the Western Front! :) Happy Festivus. OrangeMarlin 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh god everyone, stop. Please, please, just stop. Go drink some egg nog and you'll feel much better.--EveRickert 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hate egg nog. I'll drink some good chardonnay. Then go to a movie or two because all the Gentiles will be with families, and the theaters will be empty for us Jews and Atheists. OrangeMarlin 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Fill and Orangemarlin, your comments here seem strange, since you've been adding this to another article:
- All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of faith, its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.
Your behavior might objectively appear to be troll-like in that you take a point raised here on the talk page and troll it to the Creationism article page. Why do you not want falsifiablity addressed on the evolution page? This seems truly inconsistent. Would you care to explain this? Your behavior might be interpreted as you're on a mission, in violation of WP:POINT. 65.73.81.251 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Falsifiability and evolution draft
My thought exactly Eve (about the article, not the egg nog). So I would like to invite everyone to help me with this rough draft on an article on falsifiability and evolution. Please go to Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. --Filll 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The LEad Again
The lead again is useless: We've rearranged the article so the expanded descriptions come just after the lead, however, the lead, instead of making use of this to head towards simplicity, provides unexplained terminology as if it explains something to the intended reader. This is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Adam Cuerden 13:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are quite correct Adam. I and others have noticed this. However, since you had suggested that we wait until you had worked more on the rest of the article, I was going to hold off. Also we had some strong opposition from one or two quarters. I wrote to the editors about trying to develop some sort of simpler compromise, but I have not heard back yet.--Filll 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I have guests over Christmas and so cannae do much until mid-January sometime, so I'd suggest we be bold and kill the return of the old lead. Adam Cuerden 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've partially restored the last low-jargon version, then adjusted the new material. I'm not sure the whole history is useful in the lead, and the gloss of alleles needs work, but it's better. Adam Cuerden 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Summary comparison table for you to consider
Take a look at this: Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. We need more references and citations for this. I am not proposing that for this article but for another article. It is a summary for people to understand the differences between creationism and evolution. Please comment.--Filll 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is it just me or is fill obsessed with creationists. No offense, I understand that they have their beliefs, and they can be a pain to others who have their own beliefs (such as fill and the intelligent atheist and possibly Ashkenazi Jew M.D.). But I do request that you reconsider your estimation of me as a creationist. That the Bible does not discuss evolutionary origin of species is a coincidence.
- Lumping me in with creationists leads to unproductive discussions. I am not basing anything I say on the Bible (although I have made corrections when other people say incorrect about the bible, e.g., mutable goats in Genesis, in the interest of intellectual honesty.) If you want to discuss my comments on mutable goats, that is fair game, since I introduced it.
- I have eyes and a brain, and have never been one to believe what is written over what I see or over what I consider logical. Calling me a creationist is clearly intended as an ad hominem. I too argue with creationists, because intellectually honest discussions can lead to new ways of seeing things, and realization of errors of ways. 65.73.44.65 03:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- If vacuous is not a creationist and considers that label a slur, I apologize for any offense anyone has caused him. However the views he adopts are quite similar to creationists, to the point of being indistinguishable. Maybe we should call him an evolution sceptic or an anti evolution activist.--Filll 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- You keep feeding this kid, but he throws out these things that you just have to answer. I am obsessed with Creationists only when they fight science, try to force kids in this country to listen to their myths, and convince politicians to make statements in favor of ID and other pseudo science. And as for you Vacuous Sockpuppet, you have stated over and over again comments that, for all intents and purposes, are nothing more than what a Creationist would espouse. Just because you say you're not a creationist does not mean that you are not. It just means you are pushing a creationist agenda in a very unsubtle manner and trying to make you appear to be a "scientist." But I think it would be best to put you on ignore, but that is not something that can be done with Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 15:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do not think the label "creationist" is a slur. Many people are proud to be creationists. And I have no problem with creationists UNTIL they try to force these beliefs on others. Once you are dictating what I and others should believe, then that is over the top. Scientists do not dictate what you should believe. If you want to ignore science and live in a cave, then you are free to. If you want to teach creationism in your church, you are free to. If you want to stand on a street corner and proclaim it, you are free to (within legal limits of course). If you want to hand out fliers about it, go ahead. If you want to write letters to the editor and try to get them published, go ahead. However, at some point this sort of proclamation of your own personal belief crosses over the line. And that line is science class. What is wrong with teaching creation beliefs in:
- social studies classes
- religion classes
- law classes
- history classes
- debate classes
- philosphy classes
- politics classes
- current events classes
- and similar classes. The one boundary that exists is that since creation mythology is not science, it should not be in science class. You can get on your local school board and try to push a curriculum that includes "teach the controversy" and intelligent design and other nonsense for 6 out of 7 hours of the school day, if parents and the state testing requirements let you. However, the one place that this sort of nonscience does not belong is in science class. I personally would love to teach a class on the "controversy" but I would tell the truth and make the creationists look like complete and utter fools and dishonest liars and power hungry jerks. You want it taught? Let me teach it. But don't complain if I teach the truth about this horse****. I think if given the choice of no teaching, and teaching the truth, most creationists would rather it not be taught at all. --Filll 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do not think the label "creationist" is a slur. Many people are proud to be creationists. And I have no problem with creationists UNTIL they try to force these beliefs on others. Once you are dictating what I and others should believe, then that is over the top. Scientists do not dictate what you should believe. If you want to ignore science and live in a cave, then you are free to. If you want to teach creationism in your church, you are free to. If you want to stand on a street corner and proclaim it, you are free to (within legal limits of course). If you want to hand out fliers about it, go ahead. If you want to write letters to the editor and try to get them published, go ahead. However, at some point this sort of proclamation of your own personal belief crosses over the line. And that line is science class. What is wrong with teaching creation beliefs in:
Referring to a point of view
If you need to refer to my personal point of view, it is skepticism over the lumping of 'evoutionary theory of the origin of species' with 'evolution without speciation' and/or gravity, etc.. Evoution without speciation is a valid, settled, emperical, repeatable science. 65.73.44.65 17:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- You are allowed to believe anything you want. However, this is not a place for debate. Go someplace where they will debate with you. You have been given repeated references which you are not interested in, for obvious reasons. You are very transparent. I am going to support from now on summary deletion of any posting of vacuous poet from the page.--Filll 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- This section was in response to your question. I'd be careful about summary deletion, though. Experience speaking. 65.73.44.65 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
WP:NPA
Does this apply to the talk pages? 65.73.44.65 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
- And how have you been personally attacked? And have you got clean hands yourself? Look what you have done is useful, but I do think that one has to be careful not to badger others. If one starts to make foul charges against the other editors, then the knives will be out.--Filll 04:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Filll. I reread most of what was written here. Here's what I've accused you of. Being a sockpuppet. Not being a scientist. Not being able to read (and backing it up with quotes of how you misread what I wrote, and badly). Being a Creationist (or lackey thereof). Not understanding falsification. Not understanding speciation. Wholesale revisions and deletions of this talkl page. Those could be interpreted as personal attacks, although not in the in the sense of WP:NPA. You are a sockpuppet. You aren't a scientist. You cannot read. You are a Creationist. You do not understand falsification. You do not understand speciation. And you did delete and revise what was posted on here. Oh yeah, I called you brainless, but I deleted it. Your cheap shots on the other hand were not fact based and persistent. I now am really done with you.OrangeMarlin 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- You have been reported for abuse and personal attacks.
Ymous 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also will confess to almost calling the vacuous one a Vacuum head, but then I thought better of it. I do not want to make personal slurs.--Filll 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just go to the FSTDT website and I always feel better about it!!!! OrangeMarlin 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- It was not a threat, it was a quesiton. I did not initiate the ad hominems, but I admit I did take a few cheap shots. I was asking if this was against policy. If it is, I will stop. If it is not, I will continue to take cheap shots from time to time in the interest of entertainment and defense. 65.73.44.65 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
- Also, the link seems to vindicate my earlier attempts to remove ad hominem posts. Of course, that lead to my IP being blocked. Anyway, I don't plan to turn anybody in or anything. I do not resort to getting admins to defeat my intellectual opponents. Rather, I attempt to have a discussion. I will say shame on the person who had an admin block my IP and account, whomever that might be. 65.73.44.65 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- It is also possible it was simply an admin policing the article; I'm sure one or more watches this article and checks in periodically. In any event, I fail to see the purpose of bringing it up again, as the issue appears to be closed and you unblocked. As for WTA, it is a guideline, not a policy, and there are other reasons not to insult one another, such as official wikipedia policy. Guidelines are good, but policy obviously trumps them. Titanium Dragon 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Vacuous Poet when I started trying to edit this article a whole different crew of editors were here and I thought they were overly paranoid about creationism, however I quickly discovered I was wrong. I was frustruated with all the paranoia and scrutiny, however it is justified. I wish there were no mention of creationism in the article. Vacuous Poet you should not feel slighted, because it has become like a right of passage to be scrutinized. I can't believe the depths of trickery that some supposed Christians take to pursue their agenda and activism (I personally find it offensive). Because creationist use any information that would slight evolution, then any slight quickly is associated with creationism (it is like Pavlov's dogs). I think Titanium is right that a past editor was probably cruising by and blocked you. I do recommend introducing new ideas and concepts with lots of references. That way you may be accused of being an idiot, but at least you would be an educated idiot and follow Wiki policy. I don't think anything in falsifiablity is useful for this article (put in creationist-evolution controvery article), but your points about speciation maybe useful to address misconceptions. I did learn something from the discussion. GetAgrippa 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- A sockpuppet complaint has been filed against Vacuous Poet and his 4 different IP addresses under which he logs into this discussion. Two of those IP Addresses were banned, and he attempted to get around the ban with other IP addresses. He made a wholesale deletion of various posts, none of which attacked him personally. I think Vacuous Poet should move on. As for his bringing up Speciation, his complete misunderstanding of the science was the basis of a lot of attacks on his knowledge of science, and pseudo-claim to being a "scientist." I think his knowledge of science is lacking. I intend to add my comments to any sockpuppet charges that are brought against Vacuous Poet. OrangeMarlin 15:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- This complaint was a secondary complaint. The first complaint, and the first the ban to be under appeal, was when I was banned for being a sockpuppet of KdBuffolo and a single purpose account. The posts I deleted where in accordance with practices discussed here. Laying traps for your intellectual opponants might be fun, but all anybody has to do, OrangeMarlin, is review your talk page User_talk:Orangemarlin to see where you right things like This topic infuriates me, because I just despise the Christian Right in the US. - OrangeMarlin and One day someone has got to explain to me the difference between our Religious Terrorists and the ones in Iran. - OrangeMarlin , leaving no doubt about your beliefs. In fact, even though you commented on the need for an explaination, when somebody (a person who claimed to be a Jew and a Christian) offered to have such a discussion with you, you scoffed with Jewish Christian? My personal mitzvah is to ignore you. -OrangeMarlin and later I don't like the Christian right, and I particularly dislike Jews who deny who they are. -OrangeMarlin . 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- What is wrong with that? The christian right has done nothing but show hatred towards outsiders. Orangemarlin is completely within his rights for being uncomfortable with them, since there are many from the Christian Right that would like to see him executed for his ancestry. Not much different than the Islamic Right that would want to execute any American for their citizenship. Both make me uncomfortable. Because they are both extremists and dangerous.--Filll 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- And what is your point Vacuous Puppet. LMFAO. By the way, you have no clue what a mitzvah is :) OrangeMarlin 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- If this accusation is true then Vacuous Poet needs to be soundly dismissed. GetAgrippa 15:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What accusation? 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Just so you know where I'm coming from with him, here's a quote from above:
- "Regarding block my account. Easy enough to get around (assuming it is true, and I do not think it is true). Regarding my single purpose account. Not true, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia. With regard to me being a Creationist. False. Regarding to my not being interested in this article. Self-evident that I am. Regarding my deleting of posts. I did not delete posts that I disagreed with. I left many posts that I disagreed with. I deleted posts that seemed to violate an honeset intellectual discussion. Regarding my being brainless. False. I am in fact a scientist (though unpublished in a journal). I admit that I am not a relevant scientist, though. Regarding the hostility. Some of you are clearly fanatics, self-appointed gaurdians, who obfuscate and ignore a perfectly valid question. Regarding others who have defended the question, thanks. VacuousPoet 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) VacuousPoet" He admits to deleting posts, changing his IP to get around blocks. Sounds true to me. OrangeMarlin 16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good. I wrote that after my IP was blocked for being a sockpuppet of KdBuffalo. I admit to deleting posts in accordance with WP:NPA 65.73.44.65 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I find Vacuous Poets claim not to be a creationist disingenious. While not promoting creationist positions, he/she trots out well worn creationist attacks on evolution, both here and on other pages. Proof? VP previously quoted a D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, who it turns out only exists on the internet on four creationist quote mine pages. This page is about the science as it exists today. Unless VP can come up with a scientificly accepted theory that challenges the current theory he/she should be ignored, like the troll he/she is. --Michael Johnson 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mike, See here: ] where did I cite D.S. Woodroff. I don't remember doing it. If I did, it would have been an error of me not knowing it was a quote mine page. But I do not remember doing that. Are you sure you don't have me confused with somebody else? 199.62.0.252 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- It was in the archive section labeled December 2006. An unsigned anon user, sounding very much like you if not you. I don't have the time to go back and try and match them to your IP, it would help if you actually logged in. You were certainly editing Talk:The Origin of Species where you were trying to associate evolution with Hitler's racial policies. This is a strategy used by creationists in the southern United States, where it strikes a particular note. You used as a reference From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, a book of course written by a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. --Michael Johnson 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- But I asked where did I cite D.S. Woodroff. That From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was written by a fellow of the Discovery Institute is a coincidence. It is also ironic that you object to pointing out that some NAZIs called NAZIism applied darwinism (not a coincidence, by the way), but do not hesitate to say I must be a creation scientist because I mentioned a book who belongs to the Discovery Institute. I found the book on amazon. 65.73.80.45 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I was going to put something very inflammatory here, but I have thought the better of it. If you can't say something nice....--Filll 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wisdom Teeth and Hair
I know little about the way evolution works, and I didn't find the article helpful in answering some of the questions I still have. I have heard that wisdom teeth either evolved in order for humans to have an extra set of molars (because of decay) or that it is because our jaws have just gotten smaller and could not accomidate this. Can someone tell me which of the two theories is true? I've also heard that having fewer wisdom teeth today means that you are more "advance" or have evolved (in the context of your dentry), since now humans do not require their wisdom teeth. Is it true that if I lack wisdom teeth, I have more advanced in this sense? I really don't understand how evolution works.
I have also heard that humans have a trend of losing hair (or having our hair become thinner) as we evolve; that is, our ancesters had a lot of thick hair, while we have gradually evolved to having fewer or thinner hair. What is the reason for this? From what I understand of evolution, you only evolve when a new genetic mutation benefits the species in some way so that the new mutation is selected for -- in terms of humans eventually growing to have fewer hair... I don't see how the mutation of less-hair would make much of a difference -- how could we have "evolved away" our body hair?
Assuming that the logic so far is correct, would it mean that having less hair today would mean you are more evolved or "more advanced" in this sense? For example, asians tend to have less body hair (or at least, thinner body hair) than other races from what I know -- would this mean that in this sense, they are more advanced (in that they have "evolved away" their useless hair)? I don't mean more advanced generally speaking, but in the sense of being "further along" in terms of body hair (or lack thereof). I mean, if Homo sapien sapiens have evolved from having a lot of body hair to having less hair, doesn't that mean that those races today with less body hair have evolved? 24.23.51.27 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be good for you to get an account and sign in. Evolution does not make a later species "more advanced" or less advanced, or more or less evolved. This is a common misunderstanding. If there was some strong disadvantage to having wisdom teeth, they would disappear. If there was some strong disadvantage to having body hair, it would disappear. If there is no strong disadvantage, my impression is that it is a matter of genetic drift, but I would bow to any biological experts to weigh in on this. These are examples of vestigial structures, and you can read about them in that article. Humans have at least 180 of these. This was presented as part of the Scopes Monkey Trial in which creationists were roundly and soundly discredited and made to look like complete, well, monkeys (even though they won the case, they lost the battle). --Filll 14:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Evolution doesn't make things more or less advanced. In the case of humans, natural selection is not playing nearly as strong a role as it used to - we can cure cancer and a number of previously-fatal diseases, so genes which select for resistance to those are not as strongly held. Basically, were we still under significant pressure, with clothes we might lose our body hair even more, and with our softer food and better dental care, lose our wisdom teeth. These mutations, however, are more likely to be controlled by genetic drift, as few people in the first world die of wisdom teeth, and we have enough food to support body hair freely. Only when there is pressure will it be forced, though sexual selection may gradually select for or against certain traits. Titanium Dragon 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that if humans do not wipe themselves, out, we will end up changing the gene pool through genetic engineering rather than through natural selection.--Filll 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A great "explanation" of mutations
Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on. from . Wow we have to revise all those science books. All those Nobel Prizewinners and scientist are dumb !! We had it all wrong--Filll 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Entertaining, and remarkably similar ideas to Aristotle's concept of Formal Cause, the perfect ideal with variations being perceived as deterioration: see also History of biology#Classical Greek biology. This perception filled well with the medieval interpretation of Created kinds. Which of course resurfaces with out modern evangelical chums. Onward to the Dark Ages! .. dave souza, talk 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is this contributing to the evolution article? Selective application of rules and guidelines. The rules and guidelines apply to those who find fault in the evolution article. 74.33.26.71 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I don't know how to start a new topic: this topic looks bogus and biased, but its the closest one I could find to the MUTATION section in the main EVOLUTION page. I propose a few comments be added to the following sentences:
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under current environmental conditions are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on alleles to which they are linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. Note that if the environment changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial --DNAunion 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal Disputes
Why are only some personal disputes removed? E.g., see ]. 199.62.0.252 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- You want to be helpful? You want to not get in trouble here? My suggestion is to be constructive and offer constructive suggestions. Do not use creationist websites in any way shape or form, but your own brains. The creationism article is in sad shape and it could stand some assistance. Many others could as well. Arguing and fighting with other editors is not helpful. For example, think up more falsifiability tests for evolution. Do web searches and find others. Find better references to Huxley's precambrian rabbit example. See if you can find other references to precambrian rabbits besides Huxley and Dawkins. See if you can find references to the falsifiability tests we already have. There are many many things that can be done that are constructive instead of mindless fighting and dredging up tired old nonsense from creationist websites that was dismissed 20, 50, 100, 150 years ago.--Filll 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Constructive Criticisms, again
1. The article does not sufficiently differentiate between evolution in general and evolutionary speciation in particular. Specifically, evolution can be divided into two classes: a. Evolution within a species. b. Evolutionary speciation. The article (and author?) treats them as equal, when in fact there is a quantum leap from a. to b.
- Why this concern about evolution inside or outside species when the concept of a species is so illdefined anyway? --Michael Johnson 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Think it is fairly well defined. Misplaced Pages states:, "Biological / reproductive species = Two creatures of the same species are able to reproduce (without human help) and have a 'child' that is fertile." I know what that means although I'm off to change it so the thing makes sense. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't, actually. Different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; not all mules are infertile, for instance. It is actually relatively arbitrary. It is still up for debate, honestly; it is an arbitrary line drawn by humans. Titanium Dragon 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate it is an arbitrary line drawn by humans in some cases. I think though it is clear enough. The speciation arguments should go on the species page because, arbitrary or not, the definition should easily fit a large majority of current and prior species. Candy 07:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Think it is fairly well defined. Misplaced Pages states:, "Biological / reproductive species = Two creatures of the same species are able to reproduce (without human help) and have a 'child' that is fertile." I know what that means although I'm off to change it so the thing makes sense. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
2. The first sentence might be improved with "In biology, evolution is the process in which the relative frequencies of inherited traits change through successive generations."
- I disagree with the "In biology,". I wiped that earlier because the article starts with the sentence, "This article is about evolution in biology." Adding that simply makes it two words larger and no clearer. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, well how about "Evolution is the process in which the relative frequencies of inherited traits change through successive generations." This seems better worded and technically correct? Is this incorrect? Or is the present "Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations." more readable? 65.73.80.45 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
3. The article does not define what term population means.
- It shouldn't. It should merely link to the biological def of population. It's fairly self explanatory anyway don't you think? Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
4. While some in this discussion object to science philosophy with regard to falsifiability of evolutionary speciation, the article relies on science philosophy for definitions of a scientific fact and scientific theory.
5. With regard to falsifiability, 1.a is much easier to show as being falsifiable (read: testable/observable/empirical) than 1.b. Describe in the article how falsifiability is applied to 1.b. From wikipedia's article on the scientific method.
- Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
6. "Some people find this offensive because it "degrades" humankind." should have a reference. Otherwise, it sounds like original research.
- Strike the sentence anyway. Weasley words = "some people".
7. "Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most contemporary scientists consider were neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science..." Reference, please? Sounds like original research, please provide a reference. Scientific theories never limit how they are applied. Not that the misapplication should be removed from the article, but the defensive stance seems to be more soapboxing. This section needs to be reworked with regard to social controversies.
- Agree totally Strike it unless there is some validation or explanation. It's vague at best and confused PoV as it stands. Candy 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
8. The section on speciation would do well enumerate experimental confirmation of speciation in the lab. Please consider the inclusion of a table of the various life forms. E.g., insects in one row, mammals in another row, plants in yet another row, and so on and so forth. In one of the columns list if speciation has been experimentally observed, or if a change in fertility has been observed between two or more distinct populations descended from the same lab ancestry (which does not prove speciation, but it is evidence of moving toward speciation). Another column might explain why speciation has not been experimentally verified in the lab, e.g., because the generation time of some life forms is too long. Do not let concerns with providing so-called "Mythical God-believing fundamentalist Christians" ammunition dissuade you from making the article better and more informative.
I'll add more in the future as time goes on. Meanwhile, please consider these suggestions, but please do not take them personally. I like the new fill who is trying to avoid personal attacks. 74.33.26.71 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Falsifiabilty has been addressed ad nauseum. It is time to archive it. I added Mayr's definition of a species to species extinction section. The intro reads like evolution is synonymous with speciation. The article is too long to make a table of speciation (that would be better in Speciation article). However, references should be provided and a couple of good examples.GetAgrippa 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the a proposed table for speciation, that might be fine (moving it to speciation, but it reminds me, why is the gravity table in so many different articles? E.g., , Creation-evolution controversy, and Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. I think I have seen it other places, but the table even once has problems. 74.33.26.71 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet
- The posting above is part of the reason that I think it would be best if the evolution article was just on the science, and all other comments were summarily deleted on the talk page. Separate articles on creationist nonsense arguments could be created. Falsifiability is just a distraction because creationists are frantic to attack evolution; it was used as a way to show their beliefs are not science and they are aching to use it against evolution. And the speciation argument is as old as the hills and ludicrous. These have all been dismissed over and over. People who bring these up are not interested in discussion or debate or knowledge. They are just luddites and angry anti-intellectual malcontents. Also, this is not the way science is done. One side does not just have to be opened up to attack and the other side gets to hide its beliefs or have its beliefs beyond criticism. In a true debate, Creationism has to be open to criticism. Of course they do not want that because it will fail every test put before it, and they know that. --Filll 15:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Ymous 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) "Luddites" and "angry anti-intellectual malcontents" are personal attacks.
- The response above from Filll shows that constructive criticism is not taken in the spirit it was given. Falsifiability is on the wikipedia page for the scientific method, but an editor declares that falsifiability of evolutionary speciation is creationist criticism, and therefore somehow invalid by association. "They are just luddites." Is that the creationists or the authors of wikipedia's scientific method page74.33.26.71 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- That point about deleting the controversy has merit in the article. It has always been assumed that addressing the issue will help neutralize the onslaught. I don't know it may precipitate it. It would be interesting to compare troll-vandal hits in an evolution article without controversy or history compared with controversy and history. Expand the present article with jargon but explain it in laymans terms-just science. Make it an overwhelmingly convincing article that would be difficult to dismiss. Lots of images to demonstrate phenomena. Rather than an article a production like presentation. Get A Grippa!!! Sorry just dreaming. GetAgrippa 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just wondering what the right response is. They want to find someone to play word games with, and play the same games over and over. They are not interested in knowledge or learning, as near as I can determine, but just being trolls. I do think that Misplaced Pages needs to have some good articles where people looking to defend themselves from this sort of crap can go to get information and links to other sites. But should it in be in the science article itself? Just wondering... If we deleted that material, and then just deleted people like vacuous poet on sight, then how long would a given creationist nut try to disrupt things?--Filll 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And Filll continues to delete messages on a talk page that he has NO BUSINESS deleting. None. If a post agrees with his factually inaccurate view of Evolution, it stays. If it disagrees, he removes it.
Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias.
12.145.177.110 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- "...and then just deleted people like vacuous poet on sight..." Come on fill, some people are agreeing with my constructive criticisms that you requested. 74.33.26.71 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- I think you need to mention the controvery, probably in just one section, but the whole article should not be written as propaganda defense. 74.33.26.71 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- "should not be written as propaganda defense." You should state defensive not propaganda defense that is your POV. Vacuous, why do you change you I.P. so much seems dishonest or a POV pusher at a minimum. You also seem like more than one person. GetAgrippa 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. I don't believe that Vacuous is a creationist. I don't believe true Christians would resort to dishonest tactics to expound an agenda, however I realize there are nutcases like the Army of God, etc.GetAgrippa 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion for dealing with creationists
A number of extended articles that address various creationist attacks be constructed, with themes such as
- evolution is science, not religion, but creationism is not science
- evolution is falsifiable, but creationism is not
- evolution is both a theory and a fact
- evolution is supported by the vast majority of scientists
- evolution has been observed
and so on. These articles would be stuffed with references and links to relevant websites.
The evolution website include only a very small controversy/confusion/misconception/defense section with summary sentences of the main points, and links to the extended articles.
An overarching article, maybe like the controversy article be produced to organize and present the material, as well as provide links to the extended articles.
Other articles such as "hypocrisy of creationists" (or "biblical errancy") are possible, demonstrating that literal belief in biblical accounts would require a stationary earth, a flat earth, a square earth, problems with tree rings and coral rings and layers of benthic sediments and dynamo theory and the value of pi and knowledge of teleomeres and optical refraction and Doppler shifts and a huge amount of other similar things. Basically, if one accepts the bible as literally true in all aspects, one has to deal with several hundred thousand documented mistakes and inconsistencies and then a huge volume of disagreements with scientific predictions, like the sphericity of the earth. Of course, what is common is that even biblical inerrancy advocates only believe PARTS of the bible are inerrant, and reject or interpret the parts they disagree with in whatever way they choose. This is what I call the hypocrisy. Either the bible is a scientific text, or it is not. You cannot claim that evolution is wrong but then ignore all the other conflicts with science in the bible or sweep them under the carpet.--Filll 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- and You cannot claim evolution is right but then ignore all the other conflicts with the science in other books or sweep them under the carpet. Ymous 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Bible is not a scientific text. --Guinnog 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- It definitely is not. However, we have a very aggressive persistent group of people that believe it is, or want to treat it as though it were.--Filll 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not wanting to learn seems true enough. Plenty of reference materials have been recommended, yet no one seems to read it. I see this in politics too-what I call agenda driven behavior. Any behavior is justified in meeting the needs of the agenda-no logic just a blind machine. I don't see any fruit to be gained by such agendas. GetAgrippa 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ymous 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)You all have been reported for bias and personal attacks.
- Who are you ? And when did I attack you? I have no idea who you are. Are you a sockpuppet? --Filll 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ymous has falsely accused me, and probably others. I have not deleted any part of the article or talk. I have not displayed bias against creationism or Christianity. No one is ever welcomed warmly in this article or talk. I don't like false accusations. GetAgrippa 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The very fact that you do not allow scientific facts that poke holes in Evolution shows your bias. Wiki goes so far as to allow a entire section of Criticism of Creationism, but there's no room for Criticism of Evolution?Ymous 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The situation is not symmetric. Are you under the apprehension that these two are somehow on an equal footing? Well then my friend, you are sadly mistaken. Sorry. Why do you not write something as I suggested? --Filll 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Latitudinal diversity gradient
We should add some mention of the cradle of biodiversity thought by Jablonski and others to originate from the tropics and latitudinal diversity gradients. It would probably fit in the History of Life section. GetAgrippa 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Frauds hoaxes in evolution
I noted that the article on Noah's ark had a section on attempts to find Noah's Ark. Should Evolution also have a section on attempts to show "missing links" in misguided attempts of some scientists to validate evolutionary speciation, and various other evolutionary frauds and hoaxes? It sounds like an interesting article, I might take a cue from Fill and write one up. What do you think? 65.73.80.45 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Frauds such as Piltdown Man already have their own articles. If you can find any that do not already have their own articles then by all means start them. You can start by looking at the category "Hoaxes in Science". However there is no need to add them here, as Evolution in no way relies on such hoaxes, and the article is already excessively long. --Michael Johnson 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Should they be linked in a section on attempts to find a missing link? The reason I ask is that some of the editors of this article are also editors of the Noah's Ark article, and it got me thinking. I suppose if these false missing links were never very important in evolution, or the public perception of evolution, they should not be linked. But if they affected public opinion as some of the Noah's Ark found hoaxes, it might be worth including. 65.73.80.45 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- We don't have any information about these so called frauds and hoaxes at human evolution so I see no reason to add any information about Piltdown/Nebraska man here at the main article. JPotter 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are hoaxes on all sides of the controversy. You could probably find many creationist frauds as well. In fact, my suspicion is that you could find many more creationist frauds than frauds by scientists. If you made an article on ALL the frauds on all sides, it might be interesting.--Filll 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am sure. Maybe you want to include creationist hoaxes on the creationist page. Maybe even links to creation simulators. But with regard to my own question, and upon reflection, I think it depends on what effect these hoaxes had on evolution, the way it was taught, and/or the way it was perceived by the relevant scientists and/or the general public. 65.73.80.45 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Why I am feeding this sockpuppet is beyond me. Weren't you blocked VacuousPoet...several times? Anyways, Creationism, being just a myth and therefore not real, can't be hoaxed. Really, how can you hoax a myth?Orangemarlin 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ymous 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that there is room for it on the creationism page. Both the creationism page and the evolution page are pretty long. I would suggest a separate page on frauds of all kinds. I am not a big fan of trying to jam everything into one page. I think a frauds page would be interesting. I do not know much of the details. That is the fun of doing the research for an article. You have to dig into sources, read documents, books, other encyclopediae etc. It is tedious but rewarding when you get a good article. I think you should try it. I am sure others here will be willing to help you if you need help.--Filll 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about Frauds in Evolution? Or is that off topic? Will you delete this too?
- Fill is right about some editors research and efforts to create articles. Some of the best articles have been organized and mostly written by a novice. They took the time and effort to thoroughly research the subject and pay heed from experts to create an excellent article. I have been impressed, and sometimes think experts should only provide guidance rather than write.GetAgrippa 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fraud is a problem in science past and present, but so it is in many aspects of life (Christianity past and present same ill fate). Do you throw out the baby with the wash basin? Only thirty percent of medical research withstands scrutiny and produces significant research (the majority is classified as false findings) according to JP Ioannidis. Does that mean that all medical research is a useless and fruitless effort? Humans are more intuitive than intelligent creatures and we tend to muck up a bit. However the sciences have provided a means and structure for us to overcome our muck and not repeat the same mistakes and eventually get it right. Look at the Noble Prizes in Medicine and Physiology the last hundred years and look at the significant work that warranted such accolade. GetAgrippa 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Evolution simulators
Is this vandalism? A joke? I am not sure that an evolutionary speciation simulator deserves a link from this article anymore than a magic bullet simulator should be linked from an article on the assassination of JFK. 65.73.80.45 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Population genetics is the backbone of modern evolutionary studies. No hypotheses will stand scrutiny without modeling. Neuroscience does the same as other fields. Evolution modeling moves evolution into the realm of hard science. GetAgrippa 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, well, I'll have to look into it. Maybe if I find a gravity simulator or something I'll understand. 65.73.80.45 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
My understanding is that a big piece of the reasoning behind Intelligent Design is based on evolution simulations.--Filll 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I looked, and to my surprise, there are a lot of gravity simulators available. None of them are linked from the gravity article, however. Anyway, clearly it is no vandalism nor is it a joke. Sorry. 65.73.80.45 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Blanking Yada Yada
With respect, how did the blanking of Yada Yada help anything? --Michael Johnson 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who blanked Yada Yada and why?--Filll 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- User User:Guinnog did. ] 65.73.80.45 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I don't really know him.--Filll 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise sincerely if that was going anywhere; I just didn't think that it was. Feel free to recreate it if you want to do something towards improving the article with it. --Guinnog 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't. 65.73.80.45 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- There; I have restored it. But when I see a section with such a heading and what looks like trolling, I am inclined to remove it. We are only here to improve the article; suggestions towards that are welcome and nebulous complaints are less so. --Guinnog 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with the removal, but will leave the re-removal to somebody else. 65.73.80.45 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Restored "Yada Yada"
I formally challenge the NPOV on this page. Admins continually censor and delete intelligent conversation and factual evidence contrary to evolution, then claim this article is "Neutral".
12.145.177.110 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I challenge the challenger as he has just appeared one time and posted one comment without any idea of what is going on in the article. I don't see his criticism as neutral nor has he mentioned any valid claims to support his conclusions. I think this should be removed. GetAgrippa 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Quit removing the Request for Arbitration.
Ymous 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, calling this "Yada Yada" sure doesn't help your case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.136.44 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
- I am mystified. Who are you? What are you talking about? --Filll 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the RFM (it isn't a RFA, and apparently he doesn't even know the difference). I thought he was a troll, but apparently he is simply a malicious sockpuppet - his account had, as of the time of the RFM, 0 edits, but he is familiar enough with WP policy to know where to go. His first action with the account was to create a RFM. As his account has no link to his IP or anything else, I deleted the RFM notice on this page, Ymous' statement that he reported us all for flaming and similar nonsense, ect. WP:DFTT applies. Titanium Dragon 00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ymous 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, can you really dispute the neutrality of the discussion section? By it's nature it's kind of not very neutral!!!! LOL. Oh sorry, I thought that was quite funny.Orangemarlin 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am still new enough at this that I do not know what to do exactly. I will follow your lead then. I agree we clearly have a WP:DFTT situation here.--Filll 00:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not feed the Trolls --Random Replicator 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a strawman antic. Looks like somebody on here is creating a strawman sockpuppet. It wouldn't surprise me. 65.73.80.45 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- You'd be the expert on that point. Orangemarlin 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am removing the NPOV tag. I feel that the NPOV tag has been added as a troll. The wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about the use of this tag. :::It states,
- "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."
- The poster has not left a note describing what is unacceptable about the article ... yadda, yadda. Candy 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't added as a troll. My posts were being deliberately censored by a small group of obviously evolution-extremist Administrators. I actually posted why it was added, but I guess that was deleted too.
Adding scientific fact that refutes evolution apparently isn't welcome here. All you need are 2 or 3 admins to monitor a page, make sure all contrary points are "archived" (deleted) immediately, and viola! The world thinks Evolution is a fact.
Nothing in the talk:origins newsgroup has any bearing here; it is haunted by the same people that keep out all intelligent discussion here.
The bottom line is this. No admin/mod/user of this site is allowed to censor the dicussion of a page. I can understand watching for vandals, but this is not my site, it's not yours. Who are you (not specifically) to say what should go here and what should not? Who are you to say your scientific evidence is correct, and mine is not?
My posts don't stay up long enough to be deleted, and that is censorship. Ymous 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Trying not to feed this troll, but could you give one link to a single posting of your that was deleted. Just one. Orangemarlin 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is your third warning for name calling.Ymous 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
First sentence again
Just wanted to bring up the first sentence again. I think it got lost, and don't want to be too bold. This is a style issue.
AS IT IS NOW: Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations.
Alternatives:
- Evolution is the process in which the frequency distributions of inherited traits transform through successive generations.
- Evolution is the process in which the frequency distributions of inherited traits change through successive generations.
- Evolution is the process in which the frequency distributions of inherited traits in a population transform through successive generations.
- Evolution is the process in which the frequency distributions of inherited traits in a population change through successive generations. 65.73.80.45 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- I like alternative 4. 65.73.80.45 06:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- The issue is that this article is already extremely technical; IMO the introduction of an article should try to be readable, and "frequency distribution" is far, far more complicated than what we have currently. If a change is necessary, 4 is fine, but I prefer the current intro. Titanium Dragon 08:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who had frequency distributions sprinkled liberally throughout his thesis, and works with them every day, I still prefer the current intro. Simpler is better. We do not want to drive readers away. This is an INTRO in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. We will have high school students reading it. People with minimal backgrounds. Remember that.--Filll 15:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Simpler is better, but alternative 4 is more precise, no? E.g., "become more common" is not exactly correct. Maybe "become more or less common" is more correct, but is too wishy-washy, as are the words "some inhereted traits" (style/opinion). Also, the frequency distributions has a link built in if the reader is unfamiliar with the term, and there is also a link to introduction to evolution elsewhere. I am not changing it, but am posing other thoughts for your consideration. 65.73.80.45 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Okay, I really do want to precipitate a discussion on this, so I will be making the change sometime tonight because I think alternative 4 is more precise, barring an objections that the way it is now is better stylistically (I think most people like the present sentence for style) and precise enough in an encyclopedic sense. 65.73.80.45 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
I think this is a bad idea.--Filll 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks fill, is this in regard to the preciseness issue? 65.73.80.45 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous poet
Well if you look at the history we have been fighting for months about the lead:
- several people (including me) want to make the lead simpler
- several people want to keep it the way it was
- several people want to make it more technical
and the fighting can be pretty nasty. And to be honest, not much progress happens over months and months. Just fighting.--Filll 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well disagreement is hardly a reason to keep it the way it is. What is your proposal for making it simpler? 65.73.80.45 04:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Halo 3
It looks like somebody vandalized this page. Specifically, at the top, where it states, "To add a new discussion topic to this page, click here." Where the ] links to halo 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Halo_3&action=edit§ion=new My guess is it was done with the possible strawman sockpuppet, possibly a by someobody in this disucssion who does not want to discuss problems with evolutionary speciation. 65.73.80.45 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- I did some research, and it may have been done by David Fuchs. Here is the diff ], where he added "{ {User:David Fuchs/talkpage} }" without the spaces between the curly braces. I cannot fix it however. I'll leave that to an expert. 65.73.80.45 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- There, I think I fixed it. 65.73.80.45 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Sorry about that, I added the link template I made and use for pages where people don't post at the bottom of the page with new topics, where 'yada yada' originally was. It was careless on my part that I didn't check the template and see I had made the link page-specific. It was unintentional vandalism on my part. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I realized it was unintentional when I identified the diff. 65.73.80.45 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Sorry about that, I added the link template I made and use for pages where people don't post at the bottom of the page with new topics, where 'yada yada' originally was. It was careless on my part that I didn't check the template and see I had made the link page-specific. It was unintentional vandalism on my part. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not bite the newcomers
Please do not bite the newcomers. Even if you suspect that a newcomer is a creationist, a creation scientist, a fundementalist Christian, his or her views on this article are not automatically invalid even if simlar arguments have been heard from creationists, creation scientists, fundementalists, right wing christians, etc. A person's religious beliefs are not a basis for dismissing his or her perspective. As in the case of the falsifiability or evolutionary speciation, controversial points of view can sometimes lead to interesting and worthwhile discussions that may result in the improvment of wikipedia. Personal attacks are officially against wikipedia policy. Saying "that's what creationists think" to dismiss comment is a logical fallacy, no better than "that is was hitler thought." Stating your opinion that God is mythological is offensive to many readers who belong to monotheistic religions. Using wikipedia due process proceedings to silence your intellectual or religous opponents does not reflect well on the objectivity of the evolution article. Calling in other anti-religion crusaders to help bait newcomers may cause wikipedia to be viewed as violating Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view where dissenters are quickly dismissed as heretics, a place where the controversy has been declared invalid by keepers of the article, and all who disagree are tarred and feathered before being run out of town. 65.73.80.45 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- They don't bite the newcomers, they just delete their posts with nothing more than some trite platitude like "strawman" or "meatpuppet" or "sockpuppet". A group of 2 or 3 Administrators is all it takes to keep an article flawed, and to quell any dicussion of that article. Seems to be completely contrary to what Wiki is supposed to be about. Ymous 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you claiming to be a newcomer? The first time I heard of you you were trying to request mediation for a slight I hadn't even been aware of. Honestly, what do you think you doing? -- Ec5618 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Funny thing is that one of your fellow Creationists accused you of being a sockpuppet. Hardly anyone else did publicly. And you keep saying that you had your discussions edited or deleted. I looked at your contributions, and there wasn't a single edit to this discussion page until after you filed for mediation, and none of that drivel had been deleted or altered in any way. So, you either are lying, or you are fighting a battle for an alter ego, which would make you a "strawman", "meatpuppet" or "sockpuppet." By the way, this article is one of the best around. Orangemarlin 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Who says that my changes weren't made before I was registered?
And your post qualifies for another personal attack. One more and you're being reported.Ymous 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A Personal Attack??? Huh? I just said none of us said anything against you. And if you made edits prior to registering, then it would be had to prove what you say is honest, but whatever, I don't care. By the way, you might take a read of this Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. After that, do what you will. It's not like I'm going to lose much sleep over it. Orangemarlin 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for Ymous
Let's have your arguments and hard evidence against evolution here. Thanks.--Filll 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- You fight for Darwin nearly the same way I fight for my Lord.
- --You believe what he has written without question
- Definitely not. It has had to be modified dozens of times since it was written almost 150 years ago. The Journals are full of articles that demonstrate various details Darwin never imagined. Just like this article does, if you read it. --Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You quash any attempt to discredit him
- Not at all. I am glad to bow to experts and authorities in evolution. I am physicist, not a biologist--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --Evolution is a 100% documented scientific truth, yet you try to spin it as such
- That is nonsense. You obviously have not read the article or what I have written. Your reading comprehension in this matter appears to be abysmal. I will not repeat it for the zillionth time. Just in a word: NO, you are wrong.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You have never met him, have never performed any studies yourself, but you take his word as law
- I take the accumulated efforts of hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists working for decades and decades with millions of pieces of evidence as something substantial that needs to be explained. And I take the current standard theory (Which is NOT the original Darwinism, since it has replaced it) as the best current explanation. I am positive this explanation will be modified in the future however, as all theories are.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You have never performed any double blind tests to show that evolution is fact
- I rely on the publications and the expertise of scientists in that discipline. I do other kinds of science myself.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Double blind tests are used mostly in medical studies in treating various diseases to remove any possibility of influence of a physician. These type of studies can be controlled in that manner because you control both the hypothesis and the negative. You are missing what is science by a wide margin. Orangemarlin 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You refuse to acknowledge the cambrian explosion
- I certainly have told you repeatedly that evolution is apparently not a constant process. You never heard of punctuated equilibria? Read up.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You refuse to acknowledge the lack of intermediary fossils
- I have read many discussions of this by experts. I rely on their expertise. That is what we have to do in science.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You use semantics and false logic to say the second law of thermodyamics doesn't apply
- Ever take a graduate course in thermodynamics? Do you know differential forms and differential geometry? Do you know information theory? Do you know anything? It appears not. Anyway, thermodynamic arguments just embarass creationists. Even many creationist websites admit this. Give it a rest please.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- --You refuse to acknowledge that gas doesn't clump in a vacuum, which means stars couldn't have formed in the vacuum of space, which means no life on earth
- Gas does not clump in a vacuum? So where do Neutron stars and black holes come from? They are formed by gas clumping arent they? Seems like you have a bit of a lacuna somewhere. I will not say where. But it is clear.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like quite a bit of religious zeal to me.
- In the interests of comity, I will not say what your tirade sounds like to me. But trust me, it isnt good.--Filll 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- What frightens me is the gross misunderstanding of science here. What shocks me is that someone can come to a science page and have so little understanding of what they are writing. It's like me going to my car/auto mechanic and telling him he should be able to run on OJ rather than gasoline/petrol. When he picks himself up off the floor he informs me that it isn't possible with my car then I start to argue with him and tell him he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. I bring up the fact that there are both C and H in OJ and gas. When he tells me that I have to have a particular type of long hydrocarbon I tell him these very ones are available in OJ (even though they are not). I get some info that fruit contains starches which have carbon chains with hydrogen. Well that's close enough to a hydrocarbon isn't it? Fruit even ferments on trees and produces alcohols. Well science says that right? So scientists are telling me that OJ should contains hydrocarbons and other combustables. Now I can print out some web sites that support this. Some OJ producers in Florida are supporting me on this one too because they can see a bigger profit as a gas replacement. I've got a lot of consumer backing too because they see cheaper gas at the pumps. In fact I'm pretty well stocked up with clear, hard evidence and support.
- The clear result to my mind is that I am right. The mechanic is clearly wrong. It doesn't matter about his knowledge, understanding, experience and skill. He simply won't fill his car with OJ. I don't have a car and no nothing about them but there are scientists and industry and a lot of the public that support me and all those web sites too! I might even consider taking this to court to force gas stations to sell OJ as well as benzine. And that mechanic! Well he needs to open his eyes to other possibilities and accept that there are alternatives.
- Why oh why do I feel like that mechanic on these pages? Why do I feel that some people got their science from reading conflakes packets? /cry Candy 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- My heart is touched by your plight. Oh why can't these evolutionists accept that Darwin was wrong? ( at least when he wrote "the inherited effects of compulsory training in each successive generation" :-) ... dave souza, talk 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the cornflakes reference is particularly apt, since they were produced by Seventh Day Adventists, obsessed with colon cleansing, during a previous period of religious fervor in the US.--Filll 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not a Critique?
If Ymous(or any other user) can provide us with a critque that satisfies the following conditions why should't we allow him to add it?
Those conditions being(wikipedia policy):
- It contains proper citation with reliable sources. as per WP:V
- It conforms to a neutral point of view. as per WP:NPOV
- It does not containt original research... as per WP:OR
- ...nor is it an OR synthesis. as per WP:OR
--Wildnox(talk) 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Provided those conditions are met, it could stay. However, from the get go, the inclusion would violate NPOV because such as small percentage of life and earth scientists reject evolution (0.14%) and probably reliable sources, since most sources critical of evolution are religious creation sciencce ministries. JPotter 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- No just because something is extremely unpopular does not mean it violates NPOV. Conforming to NPOV is usually achieved through careful choice of words. I do agree that finding reliable sources would be extremely difficult. --Wildnox(talk) 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unpopular is one thing. For example, when it was found that the K/T Extinction event might have been caused by a meteor crashing to earth, a lot of geologists disputed the evidence. The meteor theory was quite unpopular, but discussing it would be NPOV because there was evidence, albeit a bit sparse at first. Creationism (or, if you prefer, anti-Evolution) would be both unpopular and unsupportable with verifiable, peer-reviewed and reliable sources. That would make it POV even with Shakespeare parsing the words. Orangemarlin 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- POV has nothing to do with sources. What you just described would make it unverifiable and original research, not POV. --Wildnox(talk) 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then anyone who parsed words ever so carefully, change this article dramatically, and you would defend it as NPOV? Isn't nonverifiable just an opinion? I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but since we're on the same side of this discussion, it's probably just a semantic point. Orangemarlin 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- My point is just that it doesn't have to violate NPOV just because it isn't properly sourced. As for the opinion thing, just imagine if nobody had cited any sources for this article. Would that make it opinion? No, we just wouldn't have a way to verify any of the facts until somebody cited a source. I'm not saying it wouldn't end up being POV, since users who ignore one policy usually ignore them all, I'm just saying it doesn't have to just because he didn't cite a source. Yes, this is completely a semantic point, so it doesn't really matter in the end(I'm just bored and procrastinating on work). --Wildnox(talk) 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I run a company, and I'm totally bored, so that's why I'm here. The funny thing about opinion is that you form it based upon your observation of facts, or by influence. I swear I could do a better job at criticizing Evolution than these guys have, but it is my opinion that Evolution is a fact and verifiable, and lucky for me, there are numerous sources to back me up. Orangemarlin 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure they could do it, but I stand on firm ground by stating that it isn't going to be possible. There have been no reliable, verifiable and NPOV sources that can logically criticize the Fact of Evolution. In fact, you can read above, where we discussed one of the key tenants of verifiable, that is the Theory must be falsifiable. Evolution could be falsified, but there isn't one single piece of evidence that can falsify it. The only way to dispute the existence of Evolution is to believe in some supernatural force, such as a god of some sort--that is beyond the realm of science, but it is a matter of faith, which cannot be verified and is most certainly not NPOV. So, I think that everyone here would be happy to allow him to add it, if it met those conditions. Orangemarlin 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I invited him to place his critique at Talk:Evolution/EvidenceAgainstEvolution but so far he has not done so. He only appears to want to cause disruption instead.--Filll 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't feed creationist trolls. Thank you. Candy 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Evolution article as a soap box
I am concerned that the evolution article might be viewed as a soapbox for a few vocal editors. Specifically, can you cite many any print encyclopedia that has sections or content like the following:
- Evidence of evolution
- Misunderstandings about modern evolution
- Comparisons of evolution to gravity
Of course, these might not be included in print encyclopedia for reasons other than not being encyclopediac. For example, space, profit, etc. But it might be interesting to note if they do, it would falsify, or at least be evidence against, the theory about the article being viewed as a soapbox.
Also, the article is currently at 14231 words and 97.9 kB, larger than recommended by Article Size. Which is another good reason to stick to evolution, and not to trying to proove that evolution is actually a science, a pursuit that might be better suited for a science blog. Before I remove or at least rework them, I am seeking comment on these concerns. Thanks. 65.73.80.45 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Yea I'd noticed that the article was quite large. Maybe splitting into smaller articles would help? --Wildnox(talk) 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is a print encyclopedia is not subject to the random theories of any creationist who wanders by. The size of the article is a responce to the constant attacks the article experiences. A print encyclopedia article would be written by a biologist who would explain the science, and can safely ignore the rantings of religious fanatics. Please note there is also a shorter "introduction" article. --Michael Johnson 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is length the only recourse? Couldn't you just point them to an "evolution really is science" blog? 65.73.80.45 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- Hee, hee. The article is evolving. At this rate it will be dominated by a defense posture to address creationism, rather than let the science demonstrate the fact and theory of evolution. There are already spinoff articles to address most sections. That offers an excellent chance to just highlight the main points and link article, or just refer to the article. This idea has come up before but has not gained any momentum. I would rather send a strong message of the scope of the hard science and facts. It is not some conjecture or mental masterbation-push the hard science. The easiest solution to shorten it would be to remove controvery and history, but I think many will be averse to this suggestion. GetAgrippa 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the defense posture may be a self-fulfilling prophesy. This could be avoided if some contributors would stop trying to bait newbies with accusations of being fundementalist christians hell bent on promoting God at the expense of science. The flame wars that errupt influence, I believe, sloppy mischaracterizations of religion in the article, and this is giving the benefit of the doubt. I agree, remove or greatly shorten controversy. I'll think about your suggestion regarding the history. 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- The issue is that the article is about Evolution, and there is controversy of a small, vocal minority in one country (and arguably, the Middle East as well) griping about it. Creation-evolution controversy is given undue weight by the US media. The reason this article has so much about it is probably just creep. Chopping out a lot of the creationism related stuff would be good - just stick it mostly in a subarticle about criticisms of evolution or something. A lot of it is encyclopedic, but I agree that creationism-related stuff (including large responses to it, along with creationism itself) should be mostly taken out of the article. Titanium Dragon 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re-reading the article, actually, I think it isn't inappropriate at all. There's only three sections related to it, compared to dozens of sections which are NOT answering criticisms of evolution, and in reality, of the three sections, two of them are correcting -misconceptions- about evolution, which is obviously pertinant to this article. Only one section is actual refutation of creationism, and that seems appropriate - it is important, but not nearly as important as the rest of the article, and doesn't suffer from undue weight at all. Evolution IS a long article, but Evolution is a large field and this page gives a good explanation of it. Titanium Dragon 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The issue is that the article is about Evolution, and there is controversy of a small, vocal minority in one country (and arguably, the Middle East as well) griping about it. Creation-evolution controversy is given undue weight by the US media. The reason this article has so much about it is probably just creep. Chopping out a lot of the creationism related stuff would be good - just stick it mostly in a subarticle about criticisms of evolution or something. A lot of it is encyclopedic, but I agree that creationism-related stuff (including large responses to it, along with creationism itself) should be mostly taken out of the article. Titanium Dragon 06:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
GetAgrippa, I entirely agree with you. The whole 'misunderstandings' section should be a subarticle at best - preferably in the context of an article on 'public reactions to evolution' or somesuch (or perhaps in the history articles?). The table comparing evolution to gravity ought to be chucked entirely, as such things are marginally encyclopedic and best left to the professional evolution popularizers. As it is, substantial portions of this article read like anti-troll bulwarks, and you're right that extended defenses have the self-defeating effect of giving undue weight to the position they're defending against. (Also - this advice comes way too late to be of any use, but WP:DNFT.) Opabinia regalis 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not to dismiss your suggestion; but this concern has been addressed at length. See Archived: "This article is too long". If you read this (I hope you do) you will gain insight into the pro's and con's to the sections you propose to delete. Personally, I didn't like the idea of being archived as topics that have been beat to death. That is not in the "spirit" of Misplaced Pages; new readers, new ideas, new perspectives, and hopefully, improvement. So by all means, take up the torch for change; however, be aware that changes of the magnitude that you are suggesting will be met with strong resistance. As GetAgrippa states above, the contributors to this article have taken an "offensive" approach in addressing the challenges so frequently raised by creationist which I am sure comes across "offensive" to some of the readers. I am inclined to agree with you, the science behind evolution in itself, eliminates the need to "defend" it. The statement by Michael Johnson made above: "biologist who would explain the science, and can safely ignore the rantings of religious fanatics." As I have stated in the past, articles written on astronomy topics do not feel compelled to address the misconceptions of those who still feel the earth is flat. I say let them rant and rave ... as long as the information in the article is accurate.. Who cares? A friendly suggestion: create an account; the IP address you are using diminishes your credibility; which makes the task of large scale editing even more formidable. --Random Replicator 06:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article is not large given the scope of subject i.e. the science of evolution is the foundation to understanding all of modern biology and impacts nearly all religious dogma on creation: shift happens - live with it. Article size is not sufficient a reason given to do a content fork other than for WP:POINT on the part of IPs tagged with non de plume of a banned editor. Ttiotsw 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The length-guideline is just that--a guideline. For a subject like Evolution, a longer article is perfectly reasonable. And answering some of the "criticisms" of evolution is well within the context of the article, and if you look at almost any textbook (I'm glancing at Campbell & Reece's Biology right now) you'll notice that the sections tend to include similar material. Tarinth 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Ttiotsw. You are all dancing to the merry tune played by a banned editor, who posts here from multiple IP addresses to avoid the ban. This editor has only occassionally offered anything constructive. For the most part, this editor has attacked the article from a fundamentalist creationist viewpoint. I have made my own views on the length of the article abundently clear, but in case someone missed them, let me reiterate:
- I believe the defensive material should be spun out to a separate article
- I believe the history material should be in a separate article
- I think that the previous strategy which was operating when I first came here months ago (delete all trolling on sight) should be reinstituted
- I apologize if my gravity and evolution table offends people. It was an attempt to simplify and shorten that defensive section, but my contribution was immediately attacked by two of the most venerable of the evolution editors who then turned that section into an incomprehensible nightmare, even worse than it was before. I was forced to make a defensive retreat while I worked on the principle spin-off article and built up references. I refuse to get into some sort of stupid edit war.--Filll 14:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts Fill. I think you have addressed issues in a well written informative manner. I think coming from another field (physics and math I presume) is also helpful in "seeing" weaknesses in the article. I tend to ignore style issues and look for content. The article states repeatedly that this is not a soapbox for controversy, yet some see it as their obligation to ignore the warnings and advance an agenda. If evolution offends someone then ignore it. The same respect should be asked of those who disagree with Christianity. Science and faith are separate domains like oil and water. I don't think science or christianity will be advanced by the pursuit of this controversy. GetAgrippa 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Ttiotsw. You are all dancing to the merry tune played by a banned editor, who posts here from multiple IP addresses to avoid the ban. This editor has only occassionally offered anything constructive. For the most part, this editor has attacked the article from a fundamentalist creationist viewpoint. I have made my own views on the length of the article abundently clear, but in case someone missed them, let me reiterate:
- Two topics: (1)article Length, (2)See also: (list) to "Evolution of Earth (as earth science)", Evolution of Earth (as intermixed with Life–evolution)
In taking an Oceanography course I found (by a link to a subunit book-Professor required), that the Ocean trenches, through mantle recycling, removed K (potassium) from our ocean and left Na. I also know the oldest Sea Floor is young, only 200 million plus years. And that (surface-terrestrial)-life didn't become oxygen-breathing atmospheric, ...until our atmosphere evolved.
- So the length of this article may be too Long. And if it doesn't address: (1)the Timeperiods of: the Oxygen atmosphere (evolution), (2)and sea floor age (its evolution), and (3)(4). Also: (5)article: "Evolution of Life (timeframes)" , then the "evolution" article hasn't accomplished its main goals. Plus since it is really ... "Evolution by natural selection" a cogent discussion of 'evolution by the alternatives' should be in here.... from the SonoranDeserts of Ariz. (I stated some of this in previous comments somewhere.)--Mmcannis 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am wondering if a re-write after a New Outline of Evolution Article. plus I think a section or two that are overemphasized could then be reduced. A collaborative effort for a new Outline would be the first Agenda. from the-deserts --Mmcannis 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, here's why these criticisms: (I can't get past the first sentence!)(I've read parts-previously): Quote: "In biology, evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more popular relative to others through successive generations. That sentence is only valid for an Article entitled: Biological evolution–(alternative Title: "Evolution of Life" ). this article is about a process occuring in biology, geology, biochemistry of earth systems, Law of superposition, Law of faunal succession, evolution of cities, highway systems, how systems evolve. I think you get the idea. from the ArizonaDeserts --Mmcannis 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note that the following notice already appears at the top of the article: This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation).
- I think the current situation is entirely appropriate. For the layperson, "evolution" is synonymous with biological evolution. N6 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- /agree. For thsoe who do not understand why say evolution is inappropriately applied when refering to technological developments go read the archived material before blundering in. Candy 07:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary style
Reading the article at present, it has an appropriate and necessary set of sections covering the points required for the purposes of Misplaced Pages – as has been pointed out, explanations are needed here which might be left out of a print encylopedia. However some sections could benefit from further trimming in summary style, with the reader being expected to refer to the linked main articles for further detail. In my opinion, History of evolutionary thought could be severely cropped: if the main article is thought to give excessive detail, a simplified article would be more appropriate than going into detail on this page. The Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology subsections could usefully be framed to deal with misunderstandings rather than relating to the claims of critics, and it would be good if Distinctions between theory and fact and Evolution, complexity, and devolution could be put more concisely. In the former, the table certainly makes the point strongly: in this main article it may be sufficient to state that "evolution is a fact and a theory in the same way as gravity, as shown in Evolution as theory and fact." The Evolution, complexity, and devolution section is worthy but rather long, and could perhaps form a sub-article with a brief summary on this article. It's a fair point that the overall length of this article reflects the complexity of the subject, but a trimming to make it a more readable length would be desirable as long as nothing essential is lost. .. dave souza, talk 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree. When I tried to replace the theory and fact section with a shorter section with simpler wording, I was attacked by a couple of editors fighting like rabid dogs. And no one here stood up to help me. So I backed off for time being. I personally believe that these sections really do not belong in this article. I would rather have an article with a simple introductory lead that people can read, and then trim off the history section and farm it out to another article (leaving maybe a short paragraph of maybe 5 or 10 sentences at most in this article) and then a very short section on controversies directing people elsewhere. But there are a lot of people who do not seem too amenable to that. And so...one has this long somewhat baggy article. Nothing essential would be lost as long as it was sent to other articles. Right? If I attempt to do any rearranging, I expect to be backed up by other editors and not let the "old hands" here like the editor who started this article kick the crap out of me. That was not the most fun I have ever had. It got pretty viscious. I will not edit like that unless there is a consensus here. Because otherwise, the editors that want the article left alone in its present incomprehesible state will win out every time.--Filll 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Speciation Paper
With all the talk of speciation the recent Science has an excellent article on hybridization in alpine butterflies. Homoploid Hybrid Speciation in an Extreme Habitat. The predictive power of evolution is demonstrated and hybridization produced a mosaic genome that generated adaptive traits that allowed the hybrid butterflies to survive in an extreme environment and become reproductively isolated. Plenty of studies just like this to support speciation and evolution. Let's see evolution support growing daily, support for any other notions zip. GetAgrippa 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have the article handy, but I just read a BBC article about it.]. It states that speciation can occur when groups of organisms choose not to breed. This is interesting. I wonder if Norwegian and Swedes will eventually branch into different species if they no longer breed with each other. I suppose it is theoretically possible, if they keep telling those Sven and Ole jokes. One problem with the BBC article is, how do the Butterflies know what they look like, and therefore know to mate with the same "team" as the BBC article puts it. Did they go into this detail in the Science article?
StudyAndBeWise 05:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think coloration of the underside of wings and species recognition, and correlation with a specific host alpine plant (the eggs of hybrids don't glue on like parental species (glue on leaves and hatch) this was advantageous because the alpine plant would lose its leaves and the eggs would be scattered with little success to survive-the eggs fall elsewhere on the plant), and also a difference in genitalia was mentioned. Most of the evidence was molecular that it wasn't branch speciation but hybridization that generated the variation. GetAgrippa 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms section
Shouldnt there be a 'criticisms' section like i see in so many other articles?
raspor 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- where should there be a criticisms section?--Filll 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are verifiable criticisms of Evolution? Do tell. Orangemarlin 15:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just wondering why they were not presented in the article raspor 15:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In which article? This article? evolution? There is an objections section of course if you look. Or the speciation article they are discussing above?--Filll 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
yes in evolution. many artciles i have seen have a critisims section. there is an objections section? raspor 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Look in sections 7 and 8 of evolution. For example,
--Filll 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Raspor, verifiable is the key word. Give us one, just one, verified reference that criticizes Evolution, and we'll be sure to include it. The Institute for Creation Science is not verifiable. Orangemarlin 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you are very familiar with this. So you are saying there is not one person in the world who has any credibility that has any criticism of anything in Evolution? raspor 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are there scientific disputes about details? Yes of course there are because it is an active area of research. Are the broad features in dispute at the moment? No they are not. The article makes clear what areas that are quite certain, and what areas are less certain because of new discoveries. However these new discoveries are about more minor details. Things like natural selection are pretty well accepted and established, for example.--Filll 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes thats what I mean: the details. Of course natural selection happens. And genetics is a fact.
Are there any areas that do not have evidence? Or weak evidence? The cambrian is a mystery, correct? Are there not areas where this little evidence? raspor 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- A mystery is not a criticism, Raspor. The fact that biologists are not omniscient is not a weakness of evolutionary theory, it's a weakness of our limited methods. Should we include a "criticism" section in the physics article pointing out that physicists don't know everything yet? Of course not. Instead, we have a page called Unsolved problems in physics; you should be asking for something like that, not a "Criticisms" section, if all you want is for us to note areas of evolutionary biology that are still under scientific dispute. -Silence 18:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I will ask for: "unsolved problems in evolution" who do I ask? what is the procedure?raspor 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is very very technical, and if you cannot read them in this article now, then it is hopeless.--Filll 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think this discussion section is for a procedure in uncovering the unsolved problems in evolution. If you are thinking about writing a section and need to discuss it, this is a place to start, certainly. Orangemarlin 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"This is very very technical, and if you cannot read them in this article now, then it is hopeless"
Fill, I dont get what you mean here. can you clarify?.
orange: i guess what i am getting at is that i have read the article here on evolution. but in my reading outside of here i have come across very interesting twists, mysteries, unfathomables, in evolutionary theory which are very inticing and never knew about them till recently. for instance i didnt realize until recently that there were only a handful of bones that showed us how evolution went from land animal to whale. and that the pictures we see are just guesses. i am not saying evolution did not happen. just would like to have a section on these enjoyable tid bits.
raspor 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Raspor: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you want an article called 'Unsolved Problems in Evolution' then all you need to do is enter that name, and start writing your article. Be sure to include references to verifiable, reliable sources or your article will probably end up getting deleted. And of course, others with information to contribute will also edit your article, including biologists who may wish to identify technical areas of interesting research that are still being evaluated in the field. Tarinth 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Raspor, someone is not going to write this for you. Get off your butt and write it yourself. Writing an article is hard work and people are busy writing their own articles.--Filll 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
where is the critic section on this page, this article needs a POV notice can i add one?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can, but it will be removed. Common criticisms of evolution are mentioned in the "social and religious controversies" section and in other articles. If you mean scientific arguments that the facts of evolution are not real, there aren't any (and some of the ones there aren't are discussed anyway, in the 'misunderstandings' section.) Robin Johnson (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Distinctions between theory and fact
Rather than spend the time on neverending debating one-to-one with those ignorant of science, can I suggest the more productive pursuit of making some enhancements to this section (which will probably be seen by millions of people and perhaps will sway some people who still have an open mind?) The main problem with this section isn't the content itself, which I think is good (and I like the comparison to gravity), but it is entirely unsourced and is thus original research. I've added a bunch of {{fact}} to this section because it makes a number of bold claims about certain theories being obsolete and/or being the most widely accepted. I think all the statements are true, but we need to come up with solid citations if this section is going to stay. Tarinth 14:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did try to rewrite that section and ran into a roadblock. I think you are quite correct, it needs to be drastically improved. I am working right now on rewriting the main "fact and theory" article to cover some of the confusion that I discovered when I first launched it. For example:
- there is a lot of confusion about the distinctions between the two "evolutions":
- the shorthand use to mean "theory of evolution"
- the process of evolution
- I have noticed a lot of confusion about this, and so I have to make it more clear, but still succinct
- disagreements about the multiple meanings of "theory" and "fact". I am working on sorting these out with many more sources
- confusions about the two separate scientific meanings of the word "fact" that appear in the Gould article (which I now have documentation for and references for).
- there is a lot of confusion about the distinctions between the two "evolutions":
- If you can help find references I would be grateful. Also, when I have the draft of the main article on fact and theory in better shape, I would be glad to have you proofread it, edit it, give feedback, etc.--Filll 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think the comparision to gravity is good? Evolution is a historical science as is archaelogy or economics. It really cannot be tested in the way gravity can. There is no way to have a control. We can easliy run an experiment to show the the force of gravity is exponential but we cannot run an experiment to show that whales came from land animals. I really dont like that comparision. To me it is misleading.
raspor 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Raspor, both evolution and gravity are both observational and experimental sciences. Both can be seen in the lab. Both can be observed in the field. Both currently and historically. So they are perfect analogies in that sense. However, just because a field of study is only observational does not mean it is not a science. For example, consider volcanology, oceanography, meteorology, seismology, geomagnetism, astronomy, etc. All observational only, and all sciences. And many with historical data only.--Filll 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
there are far from perfect analogies. the main tenents of gravity can be tested in the lab but not so with evolutionary theory. very false analogy. evolution is more like economics
raspor 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- No Raspor. The fossil record is only a minute part of the evidence for evolution. It is an observational and experiemental science. My job is not to educate you here. Go do that yourself. Thanks Candy 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Even things like astronomy are experimental in that they make predictions that can be tested. But back to my original comments: I think that defining both "Evolution" and the "Theory of Evolution" is probably suitable for something in the first couple of paragraphs of the article.Tarinth 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes that is true. We did try to get that into the lead, but it was a pretty viscious fight and I eventually gave up. And beat a retreat on the lead. I tried hard to get a clear succinct nontechnical lead, but there are editors here who are very opposed to that. So I decided to wait until adam had rewritten some sections to try again. I am thinking that for my separate "fact and theory" article that this should be made more explicit. I at least am allowed to edit that article since the fascistic editors who fought me so hard on the "fact and theory" section in this article have left me alone in the extended article.--Filll 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
As for refs for what's there already--I'm fairly sure I can find some good refs to a bunch of that section in either Dawkins or Sagan books, I'll look that up later. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I loaned out my copy of Sagan's Demon-haunted World which addresses a lot of this sort of thing. Tarinth 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Great. I really appreciate it.--Filll 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't really have that many citations :) Check out Charles Darwin, which has about 150. I'm not suggesting we aspire to that, but I think good referencing can only help people find more information on the subject. Tarinth 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be clear, Charles Darwin has about 50 references, with many of the citations referring to specific pages in the references. There's an exceptional amount of info available about him. .. dave souza, talk 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Introductory Paragraphs
The intro paragraphs are good, but they could be a lot better. I think that right now there's too much of a technical sound to it, as opposed to something more educational and inviting to people trying to learn about the subject. I'd just like you to compare/contrast with the following paragraph, which is how evolution is introduced in a Bio101 textbook:
(Fair use excerpts follows: Campbell & Reece, Biology Sixth Edition) Evolution originated with Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species...He argued from evidence that the species of organisms inhabiting Earth today descended from ancestral species. Second, he proposed a mechanism for evolution which he termed natural selection, the idea that organisms can change over the generations if individuals having certain heritable traits leave more offspring than other individuals. ..In modern terms, we would say that the genetic composition of the population had changed over time, and that is one way of defining evolution. But we can also use the termin evolution on a much grander scale to mean all of the biological history, from the earliest microbes to the enormous diversity of modern organisms. An understanding of evolution informs every field of biology, and applications of evolutionary biology are transforming medicine, agriculture, biotechnology and conservation...Evolution integrates all of biology.
(above is for example purposes only--we can't use this in the article.)
We can't use the above since it would be fair-use, but do you see what I mean about making the article more accessible?
Another thing I'd note about the above example is that it also makes Evolution sound more exciting. Just because we are an encyclopedia doesn't mean we can't put the subject in the exciting, important context that it deserves.
We could use something closer to the above, and then dive into a description of how the Theory of Evolution (what you might call a description of the fact of evolution that's described above) has developed from Darwin's original theory to modern-day explanations (and at the same time state how the question of whether evolution occurs has been a relatively incontroversial fact amongst biologists for the better part of a century). Tarinth 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are quite right. And the current article introduction is confused, and dry and overly technical. I do not mind if the article is technical. But least lets have one or two introductory paragraphs that the average person can read and understand.--Filll 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- With regards to your {{fact}} tagging, references are not required for what may be considered "common knowledge" - a lot of what you tagged is common knowledge. Guettarda 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It is true that a lot of it is common knowledge, but if we can find references for at least some of it, it would be very useful.--Filll 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think there's a big difference between what is common knowledge amongst scientists, versus what's considered common knowledge amongst the general public. In an area like this, I think it is important to illustrate that we're not making things up, even if it is something scientists wouldn't bat an eye at. (If you asked the general public what they felt was common knowledge about evolution, I would not be surprised if they told you they assume it is "just a theory" or something patently false such as "humans are descended from monkeys"). Tarinth 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I agree. A few centuries ago, it was "common knowledge" that the sun orbited the earth. And now it is semi common knowledge that it is the earth that orbits the sun (although both really go around the center of mass, at least approximately). Geocentrism was viewed for centuries as dangerous heresy that threatened Christiniaty; now such ideas seem quaint. But if we can get as many references as possible for this stuff, it will help considerably. Some we might have trouble with; that is ok, we can at least try.--Filll 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Tarinth, the quote above is not correct. Evolution did not originate (almost pun like isn't it) with Charles Darwin. Evolution was something that was widely recognised by many predecesors. Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather I recall) was a firm believer in it. Lemarck also etc etc etc. What is correct that Darwin and Wallace created the first mechanisms. However, this was before the science of genetics was created from Mendel's work in Brno so it was the foundation for the modern synthesis. Darwin's work is not a full explanation of the modern synthesis. Candy 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Minor point: as Darwin noted in the 6th edition of The Origin of Species, he and Wallace were by no means the first to put forward natural selection as a mechanism, not so sure about sexual selection. Darwin's immediate impact was as an impeccably eminent scientist giving massively detailed credibility to the notion of evolution amongst a younger generation of scientists – wide popular interest had already been created by Vestiges of Creation. .. dave souza, talk 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Tarinth, the quote above is not correct. Evolution did not originate (almost pun like isn't it) with Charles Darwin. Evolution was something that was widely recognised by many predecesors. Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather I recall) was a firm believer in it. Lemarck also etc etc etc. What is correct that Darwin and Wallace created the first mechanisms. However, this was before the science of genetics was created from Mendel's work in Brno so it was the foundation for the modern synthesis. Darwin's work is not a full explanation of the modern synthesis. Candy 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Gravity vs. Evolution
"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"
where is the experiment that proves the above? gravity's tenets can be proven experimental not evolution
economics tenets cannot be proven experimentally. evolution is more analogous to economics or athropology or archaeology
raspor 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that insects gain immunity to particular insecticides through consecutive generations, or that staph bacteria are becoming more resistant to antibiotics, or that certain species of corals are adapting to higher levels of UV radiation while others perish--are all observable examples of evolution. I would suggest learning a bit more about Evolution and science in general, because I think it sounds like you share some misconceptions that are fairly common.
Suggested reading: Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark ISBN 0345409469.
yes of course i know that these adaptations occur. the point remains that the major tenets of evolution:
"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"
is not testable. anymore than many economic principles are not testable
try reading some economics theorists and some of your misconceptions might be cleared up
raspor 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
"all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor": Every time we find a new organism we could find that it isn't based on DNA or that it has no genes even remotely like something we've seen before. Finding just one multicellular organism not based on DNA would be good evidence against common descent.
"All life is a result of such speciation events" (presumably meant to apply to the last couple of billion years): We could find some strange habitat on earth where new forms of life could be seen to be emerging from non life. That would show this to be false.
Barnaby dawson 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have moved this material to Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections. I suggest we continue this there. I responded there.--Filll 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
but we cannot experiment on the past. whale evolution. we cannot run the tape recorder. i am saying it is a bad analogy between gravity and evolution. better economics and evolution.
in evolution we use fossils as evidence. it is the major source of data. it is a historical science like economics or archaeology. not a physical science like chemistry of physics.
you reallyu dont see the diff?
raspor 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to see my response, go to Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections.--Filll 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Facting it up
I have reverted a string of imho overzealous citation requesting. It seemed inappropriate in an article considered controversial to a small but vocal group to undermine it in this way. For all those who feel that the section is under cited (obviously not myself) the sections deemed in need of citations were in this section in particular the distinctions between theory and fact subsection. Barnaby dawson 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I totally support your move. Attempts to disrupt and discredit articles by adding spurious fact and dispute tags arising out ideological ax-grinding are becoming far too common and tolerated. FeloniousMonk 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am the one who added the {{fact}} tags and it is absurd to claim that I am attempting to disrupt and discredit the article. If anything I'm attempting to make it stronger. As stated in the comment, I agree with the content of the article but I don't see why you wouldn't want to support it with strong sourcing to deflect (in advance) potential criticism. Tarinth 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that an article can be over sourced. The list of citations at the end of this article is mammoth as it is. Too many citations and the important ones get drowned out by a sea of drivel. I would call for moderation in our citations in this article. Barnaby dawson 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, take a look a intelligent design. In order to placate ax-grinders there we aceeded to every fact tag.
- My apologies to Tarinth as well, who I did not know added the tags; I did not mean to imply you were one of the category I mention. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe tarinth was trying to disrupt the article, but to help. I am the author of a lot of the material that was tagged and I agree that we need to have some of these sections more heavily armored with citations to deflect attacks. The article can be oversourced, and I have suggested repeatedly that all these objections to evolution sections, as well as the history of evolution sections, be removed to separate articles.--Filll 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Dealing with incessant objections
Per discussion that has taken place at Talk:Intelligent_design#Dealing_with_Raspor.27s_continued_objections and at Talk:Intelligent_design#Continuing_discussions_moved I suggest in order to clear the way for productive discussion here that any additional incessant and fruitless discussions from Raspor be userfied or moved to the subpage Talk:Evolution/Raspor's_objections in order to allow other, more fruitful discussions to take place. Any further discussions on these lines would then be moved there moving forward. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Predictions of Evolution
A common misconception about Evolution is that it is "just an idea or philosophy" that does not make testable predictions. Would it be helpful to list a number of the predictions made by Evolution? This would help people understand the benefit of understanding evolution, beyond simply a way of explaining life. Tarinth 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Chickenflicker---♣ 20:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Evolutionary theory doesn't predict. Candy 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Useful commentary here: Evolution and Philosophy: Predictions and Explanations ... dave souza, talk 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
creationists and IDer believe in evolution. they do not believe that there was not a designer.
how can the knowledge that life was not seeded by aliens during the cambrian change what we know now. it would not matter. its just philosophy
raspor 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC) You can see my response to raspor at Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections--Filll 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Raspor -- please reserve this space for things regarding the scientific theory of evolution. Whether or not creationists and IDers believe in evolution (I think many would disagree with you) isn't relavent to the scientific predictions made by evolution. Tarinth 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Predictions of evolution
Tarinth came up with a great idea. How many predictions of the Theory of evolution can we come up with? If I can get a bunch, I will use them to make another chart for another article (maybe this one but I doubt it since we dont have that much space here).--Filll 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please, please, please, please, please ... Evolution does not predict in this way. It explains. Prediction in this scenario only gets to make it seem like there is some directional guide. There is not. The decreased effectiveness of antibiotics is not a prediction. Candy 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The commentary linked here essentially agrees with Candy: Evolution and Philosophy: Predictions and Explanations ... dave souza, talk 09:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nice link Dave. Was interesting to read. I thought a little about predictive power of evolution. There is a way in which it is predictive but so far the only case I can think of is when there is a lack of intermediate fossil ancestors but an early ancestor is known. Evolution can be very predictive if it is known which environmental changes took place to other organisms in the same geographical region. It can also be predictive when this is known ie this is what an intermediate should look like looks like ... do we find it? I have to confess I haven't studied this part of evolution at any depth so anyone with more understanding please feel free to point me to some readers.
- However, to restate, my feeling this article needs to differentiate between to two. Candy
Here are some suggestions (from me, a nonbiologist, so please criticize away; citations welcome as well.):
- the creeping antibiotic resistance of many bacteria
- dangers of not taking antibiotics properly to breed new deadlier strains
- emergence of new viruses
- prediction of various transitional forms which were later found in the fossil record
- overuse of triclosan and other antibiotics creating resistant strains of bacteria
- prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains in hospitals
- predictions pre-Mendel of many features of inheritance and genetics
- prediction that no species would be found with features that were independent of those in other species (not sure I got that one correct; copying from tarinth).
- I think what you're remembering is when I stated that Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this has remained true (Darwin even claimed that it could falsify evolution). In other words: trees make nectar, which other organisms eat--but they don't make nectar -just- so that it can be consumed. They gain benefits from it (attracting pollenators). Tarinth 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- This has more or less been discredited; a good example of something produced exclusively for the benefit of another organism is altruism (a behavior). The reason for this has been set out by Dawkins (though he was not the originator of it); basically, altruism can exist because close relatives have a lot of genes identical to yours, so by acting altruistically towards them you'll promote your own genes' survival, even if not your own survival. Titanium Dragon 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- But then altruism benefits your genes. I think we're talking about a case where the altruism is incapable of providing the organism's gene with an advantage in natural selection. Tarinth 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- BTW. Altruism is a heck of a complex issue which has roots in society, government as well as science. This is a very interesting illumination on Altruism. It doesn't delve that heavily on the evolutionary aspects but as Dawkins is one of the talkers there is enough to whet one's whistle. Candy 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- But then altruism benefits your genes. I think we're talking about a case where the altruism is incapable of providing the organism's gene with an advantage in natural selection. Tarinth 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- This has more or less been discredited; a good example of something produced exclusively for the benefit of another organism is altruism (a behavior). The reason for this has been set out by Dawkins (though he was not the originator of it); basically, altruism can exist because close relatives have a lot of genes identical to yours, so by acting altruistically towards them you'll promote your own genes' survival, even if not your own survival. Titanium Dragon 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think what you're remembering is when I stated that Darwin predicted that no organism would ever be found that creates anything for the exclusive benefit of another organism. So far this has remained true (Darwin even claimed that it could falsify evolution). In other words: trees make nectar, which other organisms eat--but they don't make nectar -just- so that it can be consumed. They gain benefits from it (attracting pollenators). Tarinth 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- prediction of human ancestry in africa
- several more technical predictions at
- ability of chimps to engage in sign language and even typing on computers to communicate indicate that they are not so far removed from humans
- new research results indicating dogs have hundreds of unique vocalizations that can be communicated to dogs they have never met and communicate information, indicating dogs are not so far removed from humans
- Sounds interesting but also sounds more like an observation than a prediction. Tarinth 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- stratigraphic record shows a progression of species as predicted (no precambrian fuzzy bunnies)
- DNA similarity corresponds to phylogenic similarity
What else can we dig up?--Filll 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here are a couple good links to harvest from:
- * http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
- * http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_make_predictions
Tarinth 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
yes but you are missing the point. IDers believe in evolution. there is no conflict. this is all good stuff. how ever IDers believe that somewhere along the line between bacteria and us there was an intelligent intervention. all the above would be true if we were seeded by aliens during the cambrian or if God helped arrange the DNA for the eye
raspor 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm clueless to what you're debating. I don't think anyone here is really interested in including a critique of ID or panspermia in an article on Evolution. Evolution has nothing to say about those subjects. Tarinth 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
evolution says that panspermia and ID are not true. so it has lot to say about them
raspor 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Evolution doesn't care whether or not exogenesis occured. ID is not science, and it is ID which claims science is wrong. ID has not a whit of evidence to support it though, nor has it made it into a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it isn't important to this article. Please note that this has been discussed before; ID gets a brief mention in criticism of evolution and that's it. Titanium Dragon 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- "IDers believe in evolution. there is no conflict." (raspor 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
- "evolution says that panspermia and ID are not true." (raspor 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
- Incredible logic. -- Ec5618 13:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look in Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections, I took the wind out of his sails completely. What I have found over and over, is that a large part of their objections are based on a misunderstanding or two. It serves some fundamentalist preacher's agenda to push a certain view, and they will do anything necessary to advance this "agenda", including lying, repeating misleading statements even when they are shown to be misleading and corrected, creating strawmen, accusations, threats, etc. It can make for a very slick presentation, and be very beguiling to the public. In most "debates" with creationists, scientists are tied into knots because they are not used to this sort of tactic.--Filll 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
ID has evidence, logic and is scientific as much as evolution is. Those who say the opposite do not understand science and worst of all do not have open minds to even follow the logic. Explaining is wasted on them. They either are not willing or unable to understand science. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- So what is wrong with the >99% of the biologists that believe it? And all the judges that ruled against creationism and ID? And the 72 Nobel Prize winners that signed a statement condemning ID? And the over 100 scientific societies worldwide representing hundreds of thousands of scientists that support evolution and not creationism or ID? What is wrong with them? Do you understand science better than them? How many Nobel Prizes do you have?--Filll 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
At one time 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat. Sure they support evolution. Evolution as sometimes stated is a fact. And creationism is has been close to proven false. But we are talking about ID here.
The questioning was stacked. If you ask a biologist do you believe that natural selection can cause a morphological change of course they will say yes. So would an IDer. And if you ask a scientits if the earth is 6000 years old they will say no. Its a stat fudge. what 55% of US believe that an intelligent entity created humans. And then you tell me that only 1% of biologists believe that.
It is obvious there is something wrong with the stats. I think if we would look into the phrasing of you assertions we would see that stat fudge. I think perhaps the biologists are afraid telling their true feelings?
The stat is too skewed. you know that
raspor 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. 99% of scientists did NOT think that the world was flat. Where would you get that data? Maybe 99% of people thought it was flat. If we use the definition of a scientist, there weren't that many back then, and the bright ones, like Galileo, who figured out minor issues lie that the earth revolved around the sun, were jailed by church authorities. Orangemarlin 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Scientists have known for a long time that the earth was round. Ancient Egyptian scientists had a fairly good idea of its circumferance, in fact. But its all irrelevant anyway. The reason old scientific ideas get discarded is because of new data. What is the new data that supports ID? There isn't any.-Psychohistorian 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
wrong. read your history. sure you have defined a scientists as someone who does not believe the world is flat. you fudged the stat. nothing new there. and you neatly avoided the really point that using by using inaccurate defintions of creationism and evolution you can show anything. the stats were fudged thats my point. 1% of biologist believe in ID yet 65% of population in general. too skewed. it and obvious fudge.
new data is supporting ID. yes and scientists during the renaissance believed in God, correct?
raspor 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Erastosthenes measured very accurately the circumference of the earth. This was well known. As soon as ships set out to sea, it was obvious that the earth was round, except for the uneducated and superstitious. The history you are reading is wrong, obviously. There are various revisionist histories and nursery stories that claim Columbus was seeking to prove the earth was round, but they are nonsense, obviously. And you have your statistics all mixed up. However, it is true that 99.9% of biologists (and I have the reference) do believe in evolution. Their beliefs in God are something separate, as I tried to explain to you before. Your examples and rants are basically confused. You do not know what you are talking about. Why dont you research things first before posting? And NOT on ID websites or creationist websites.--Filll 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It may be noted that raspor is fudging statistics by equating belief in creationism with belief in ID. Such skewed thinking may be theology, but isn't science or normal modern usage. Filll, thanks for this worthwhile work. It should prove useful to the less deluded. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
dave i think you are not following wiki guidelines. please try to follow them. your posts are disruptive.
fill,
sorry i dont have time to teach you about scientific history. of course the greeks even esitmated the weight and volume of the earth at that time. but there were many fluxes in knowlege in europe.
i think your rants are confused. you will not listen to logic. i dont use creationist websites. all your attempts to discredit me amount to nil.
so you are saying you can believe in God and say that God did not create or guide the development of life?
Wrong!
raspor 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're claiming that Fill doesn't know scientific history and that the Greeks calculated the weight of Earth? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what is wrong with that.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?
This has been done in the past for similar editors. --Filll 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
sure just say you moved them and that i made a response
thanks
raspor 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
dave, please stop the personal attacks and follow wiki guidelines. i am not 'deluded'
raspor 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Who said you were? If you associate yourself with those poor deluded folk who ignore Filll's useful information, so be it. Evidently it's a good time to move things to a subpage before paranoia gets out of hand. .. dave souza, talk 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
weight of earth
You're claiming that Fill doesn't know scientific history and that the Greeks calculated the weight of Earth? I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what is wrong with that.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I have permission to move raspor's posts to his own special page?
are you saying the greeks did not calculate the weight and volume of the earth?
isnt this comment off subject? could it be considered trolling?
raspor 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is not trolling. It is off topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to make sure that noone misunderstood.
Weight is the gravitational force one object exerts on another. Typically, because we are most concerned with how much things weigh on Earth, weight is the gravitational force Earth exerts on another object. Weight is dependent on the mass of the object which is exerting the force on the object whose weight we want to know. So, what does "the weight of the Earth" mean? The gravitational force it exerts on itself? You did NOT say "the weight of some part of the Earth on some other part". "Does the weight of the Earth" refer to the gravitational force the Sun exerts on the Earth? The moon? "The weight of the Earth" is a phrase which has no meaning - its just babbling. In the future, when you feel the urge to criticize someone (such as your insinuation that Fill is not up to speed on the history of science) take care that you are not, in the same post, showing your ignorance.-Psychohistorian 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea if any Greek ever came up with a figure for the weight of the earth. I do not know that the artistotlean notions of gravity were very different from our own. I do know what Erastosthenes did to measure the size of the earth, assuming a spherical shape. There might have been others who did it before Erastosthenes, but he is the first recorded instance of this that we know of, over 2000 years ago.--Filll 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we know what people mean as the 'weight' of something: hint take the diameter of the earth and calculate the volume and then pick a probable density and then multiply. thats what they did in ancient greece.
please stop trolling
I have no idea if any Greek ever came up with a figure for the weight of the earth. I do not know that the artistotlean notions of gravity were very different from our own. I do know what Erastosthenes did to measure the size of the earth, assuming a spherical shape. There might have been others who did it before Erastosthenes, but he is the first recorded instance of this that we know of, over 2000 years ago.--Filll 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
yes they came up with a figure for the weight (mass) of the earth. they were quite a bit off i think like 70% but thats not bad.
why do you keep bringing this up? this is very off subject.
we should concentrate on improving this horribly biased article
raspor 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please move discussions regarding the mass Earth to Earth. It has even less to do with Evolution than exogenesis does. Tarinth 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Off topic Post
An off topic post has been moved to user:Filll. Barnaby dawson 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that.--Filll 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous coincidence
At 04:32 on 2 January 2007. 74.33.109.35 "Restructured and added evolutionary related articles to See Also list". By a remarkable coincidence the links I've looked at relate to creationist claims. The list appears to be excessively long anyway: surely it should be confined to major topics? . ... dave souza, talk 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
recent edits by 68.201.144.11 (talk · contribs)
There's some good work being done here, but this editor seems to have a penchant for adding parenthetical (and non-parenthetical) notes that are either extraneous or dubiously NPOV/verifiable. I don't have time at present to comb through all these edits and clean them up, but somebody ought to. N6 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am not a biologist, but as an outsider and glancing at it quickly, I do not think he has necessarily damaged the article. There might need to be some more references for this material. The English might need to be cleaned up. But it is not as obviously POV as some of the edits, that is for sure.--Filll 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- One of the sections I removed was a parenthetical definition of artificial selection right after a wikilink to Artificial selection. Another section was an unverified, weasel-wordy (and, frankly, unnecessary) comment about eugenics. There's damage to the article, and to the article's clarity, that can be done without adding creationist propaganda. N6 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well these edits need to be checked very carefully then.--Filll 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I (68.201.144.11) now have an account: DNAunion.
I have a BS in Biology and wanted to correct a few minor 'issues', but didn't know about the rules for editing or that what I was doing was questionable. I don't want to mess up again, so here are some things I'd like to add or change.
1) For the edit I made dealing with macromutations where I added the material about internal selection and internal coadaptation, the general reference (I could find a page number range if needed) is Wallace Arthur, 'The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology', Cambridge University Press, 1997.
2) For the edit I made dealing with the vestigial ball-and-socket joints in manatees for their "ghost" femurs, the general reference (I could get more info from this DVD, such as the specific lecture title) is David M. Kingsley, 'Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads', Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2006
3) For the edit I made dealing with human embryos starting off with the fish arrangement of 6 pairs of aortic arches, then remodeling during further embryonic development of humans bringing about the human configuration, the general reference (I could get page numbers if needed) is George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, 'Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition', McGraw-Hill, 2001
4) I tried a couple of times to make a change to the Artificial Selection part but they were undone. Artificial Selection is NOT a form of Natural Selection: the two are essentially opposites. Either: a. The part about Artificial Selection should be deleted b. The part about Artificial Selection should be moved so that it is no longer under Natural Selection or c. The part about Artificial Selection should be qualified: for example: "Artificial Selection, which is not a form of natural selection, ..."
- Welcome back!
- It's great that you have references for statements of fact. By all means, add the references to the article. There are numerous examples of how to do so present in the article already.
- As for whether artificial selection and natural selection are disjoint, there is a discussion on this topic ongoing below. Feel free to join us. For my part, I disagree with the claim that the two are mutually exclusive. N6 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Lateral Gene Transmission and hybridization
In the subsection on lateral gene transfer, there is discussion that this can be caused by hybridization. I'm confused as to how this is so. By definition, lateral gene transfer is transfer of genetic material other than from parent to child. Hybridization (per the linked article) has to do with interspecies (intergenus, etc) reproduction and the resulting children - nothing lateral there that I can see. Also, the linked lateral gene transfer article doesn't mention hybrids as a method.
I would recommend either clarifying HOW hybridization can contribute to lateral gene transfer or rewording the paragraph to remove the reference. As it reads, I'm just confused trying to figure out how they relate.
Muffinsmomusa 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Stephanie Barr 1/2/07
It is an artifact of editing. Initially it was worded as Gene flow-HGT and hybridization. The Gene flow article includes both. The sections were reorganized and hybridization found itself in an odd position. Perhaps we should change the subsection title to HGT and Hybridiation. I'll look at it. Article needs some clean up after reorganziations. Really in the classic Gene flow sense it is confusing to put HGT and hybridization. Perhaps each should have their own sections and pull Hybridization out for a subsection. GetAgrippa 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Restructure of sentence
Feeling that it may be good to explain my every edit even when soooo small. "All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor. " was rearranged. I hope it is clearer now and is a bit weightier to express that:
1. There was a single ancestor of all organisms. (NB I myself sometimes say "living organisms" when speaking but only in the context that I want to be precise and differentiate say from a biomass of dead organisms. Therefore I left the living out as it is superfluous although often used. I linked common descent and organism as well. The organism link is actually a nice article as it clearly shows some of the interesting debate about the definition of an organism and may get some people interested in reading this article. I'm certain though that the use in this contect makes it clear that it refers to all living things.)
and
2. We are all descendants of this original life due to the process of speciation (and therefore evolution). Candy 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's clearer, but is there any way to connect it to what came before? As it stands, it's making the right claim, but doesn't explain why evolution implies that. Adam Cuerden 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well GetAgrippa has edited it since. It probaly reads better. However, there is an issue with the new edit. "All organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor." is the new version. However, my version said all organisms and was correct. This one says all organisms and is incorrect becasue a time frame has been introduced- It should be modified so that it clearly states all extant organisms. Candy 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)fogot to sign. And messed up the italics. But you know what I mean.
"I haven't edited that section in weeks as I recollect so it probably has been modified several times.GetAgrippa 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies then. Must be my blurry eyes or my disfunctional processing 8) Candy 13:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
User conduct RFC: Raspor
For interested parties, FYI: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Raspor
Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC if you agree with the summary I've provided, or add your own. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
dave, thanks for removing the link to haekel, as everyone knows he has nothing to do with evolution
raspor 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'd better read the history of evolutionary thought article. Enjoy, .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
See also again
I've gone through the list and removed some items which were clearly too detailed, off topic or misleadingly piped – there's a lot more to Australopithecus than Lucy, and just what the United States Office of Research Integrity has to do with evolution isn't explained in that article. These, and a couple I've left, were added in this edit by an anon. In my opinion the list's already too long, and should be reviewed to reduce it as much as possible. .. dave souza, talk 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
holocaust denial
i noticed in the holocaust article there was a section on 'holocaust denial'
can we have a section on 'evolution denial' in the evolution article?
raspor 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Already there: Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies--Roland Deschain 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
is there anywhere where the creationists/ID point of view can be posted as an article or in an article. the ID rebuttals etc??
raspor 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- You've got the wrong topic. Use Misplaced Pages's search function rather than using other article's talk pages. Here are some pages I found when using that famed search function: Creationism, Intelligent design, Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, etc etc --Roland Deschain 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Introduction
I think I am almost happy with the introduction. It seems clear enough without being over-technical. I just have one last issue with the sentence:
"This leads to the propagation of useful traits, and the weeding out of counterproductive ones"
Apart from the redundant comma I feel this doesn't sit correctly with the tone of the rest of the article? Perhaps it's the term "weeding out" which grates because it seems to imply and external force in the removal of traits. Then the term propagation which refers to reproduction where as I lean on the side of thinking of traits as being replicated. Anyway, I'm editing it to ......
This leads to the increase of useful traits and the reduction of counterproductive traits. Candy 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thinks – how about "Over time this results in an increasing proportion of the organisms having useful traits, and fewer organisms with counterproductive traits." ... dave souza, talk 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to advantageous and disadvantageous as these are common words used in the biological sciences.
I thought about the "Over time" addition and it was quite interesting. I immediately convinced myself it shouldn't be there. Then swung back to thinking that without it the meaning may be misconstrued. However, I went back to the whole paragraph (I'd only been reading the previous sentence) and it is clear to me that it can stay without it. The gene frequency of a population can change in one generation quite rapidly so the sentence is correct. What makes it clear is the following sentence which states, "Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions." The time factor is in the paragraph for clarity. What do you think Dave? Candy 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good points. However, it still seems to me that "This leads to the increase of" could be misconstrued. How about "Thus, more of the offspring will have advantageous traits and fewer will have disadvantageous traits. Given enough time, repetition of this passive process..." ,, dave souza, talk 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Have modified. Would you be so kind as to check it? Thanks Candy 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am really impressed with the first few sentences. They are beautiful.--Filll 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Me too. Excellent piece of work. --Guinnog 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um, as now it reads "Given enough time, this passive process can result..." – didn't you like "Given enough time, repetition of this passive process can result..." ? .. just seemed a bit more explanatory to me.. dave souza, talk 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps it should be "Given enough time these passive processes ...? as it refers to both natural selection and genetic drift. Candy 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Basic Processes
Another troublesome sentence. I need help with this one please.
In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor).
I think the writer mean i.e what makes you appear ... However, I'm not happy with that because the implication to me is that it perpetuates a concept that many people have that phenotype is largely about what a person looks like. Whereas, the the far greater amount of phenotypical variation is biochemical in nature or concerns the internal organs (those not visible externally that is). Is the part in parenthesis actually necessary anyway? Candy 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about, "In natural populations, there is a certain amount of genetic variability." And I agree with Candorwien, in that "what makes you appear different" sounds more like morphology, whereas phenotype could include something like a gene for sickle-cell anemia which wouldn't be immediately apparent. Tarinth 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- For people like me who have to look Phenotype up, probably good to have something. Adapting the linked page's intro, how about –
- In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation, meaning differences in traits such as physical appearance and constitution including such aspects as size, eye color, or behaviour.
- Probably better to USify the spelling! .. dave souza, talk 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I am British, living in Austria and I used to live and work in the US and Bermuda. My grammar and spelling sometimes go awry if I'm not focused on which one I'm writing in. 8) Not too happy with "constitution" as it doesn't tend to be a word used in this context. What about "In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation, meaning differences in traits such as physical appearance, physiology or behavior."Candy 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No need to apologise, what happened was that the computer spell checker underlined behaviour, and I let it change the spelling then couldn't remember the original spelling which presumably is from the US to match color. Your version looks good, the "constitution" came from the phenotype page and I'm no expert. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Done! Made change. Put the explanation in backets. Candy 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"abbot Gregor Mendel"
I see no reason to include general biological information about Gregor Mendel (or any other figure) in this article. That he was an abbot does not help anybody to understand evolution. Interested readers are free to follow the wikilink to his article if they wish to know more about him. N6 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we crossed lines, and were doing things at the same time. It is true if you wanted to know more about Mendel you can click the link - but that single word "abbott" may be the thing that piques interest in his biography. If you really don't know about Mendel, then he is just another name. If you do know about Mendel, then to me it seemed odd that he remained undistinguished from the list of scientists' names.
Trishm 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The edits are happening thick and fast today! N6, While I was writing this note to you, somebody else reinstated "abbott". Trishm 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Mendel's occupation is indeed relevant
The introduction of Mendel was changed from "Abbott Mendel" to Mendel, with the comment that his occupation was not relevant.
I suggest otherwise, because in this case a profession speaks a thousand words. It says that he was extremely well educated - the church education system in Austria was exemplary, and priests were the most highly educated profession there was. He had time, and a good deal of autonomy.
It is also relevant that he was not a scientist as such - it indicates that the scientific method is not limited to the "club" of scientists. We treat his work as science because he was so systematic in what did, recorded and his analysis.
The fact that he was a churchman doing science is a connection that is worth making, for the benefit of those who believe that science is only for atheists.
Finally, I have never seen any article or documentary about Mendel which did not introduce him by his profession.Trishm 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to establishing verifiable facts for use in an encyclopedia article about evolution, Mendel's work stands on its own. Mendel's biography may well be of interest to those seeking context to his work, but that context has no specific relevance to our understanding of evolution itself, and as such it has no place in this article. The proper place for this information is the article on Gregor Mendel, which is already linked for anybody wishing to learn more about him. It is not our job to pique anybody's interest in reading other articles or to prod them toward our preferred point of view with circumstantial evidence--"Well, if even an abbot's work supports evolutionary theory, then it must be on solid footing."
- It's worth noting that the word "abbot" was only added a few hours ago by an anonymous editor. I reversed the edit because I did not agree that it was an improvement to this article. I still don't.
- Would other editors care to comment? I sense a potential edit war over this, so it would be good to get a 3rd opinion. N6 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I always knew him as the "monk gregor mendel". Did he do his work only when he was an Abbott? how do you spell abbot/abott? Why remove the philospher disignations for others, who are less familiar?--Filll 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Trishm (talk · contribs) and 199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Given the edit history, I suspect the latter is an incarnation of VacuousPoet (talk · contribs).
- I most certainly am not 199.62.0.252. I do feel that if you don't put in Mendel's profession, you automatically imply he is a scientist. That is misleading. And for that reason alone, the fact that he is a churchman is important. Filll, I believe he did most of his work as a monk. I first became involved when I saw "Abbott" being removed.Trishm 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The implication is that he was doing scientific work, and certainly he was. What specific misleading implication do you see? N6 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The implication is that he was a scientist, which he was not. By the way, the implication of his churchman status in my eyes is not ""Well, if even an abbot's work supports evolutionary theory, then it must be on solid footing.", it is "The religious controversy doesn't seem to have been a concern to Mendel". I'm not being anti-creationist here. Trishm 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- By what definition of "scientist" was he not a scientist? Certainly he was not under the employ of a research institution, but this is hardly implied.
- If your intent is not to bolster the credibility of his scientific work by mentioning his profession, then what is your intent? What I don't understand is why you feel this is necessary to the reader's understanding of evolution. I won't disagree that it is relevant to the reader's understanding of Mendel himself, but again, they are free to read his article if they desire such understanding. N6 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The implication is that he was a scientist, which he was not. By the way, the implication of his churchman status in my eyes is not ""Well, if even an abbot's work supports evolutionary theory, then it must be on solid footing.", it is "The religious controversy doesn't seem to have been a concern to Mendel". I'm not being anti-creationist here. Trishm 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The implication is that he was doing scientific work, and certainly he was. What specific misleading implication do you see? N6 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I most certainly am not 199.62.0.252. I do feel that if you don't put in Mendel's profession, you automatically imply he is a scientist. That is misleading. And for that reason alone, the fact that he is a churchman is important. Filll, I believe he did most of his work as a monk. I first became involved when I saw "Abbott" being removed.Trishm 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- For 199.62.0.252: Please stop mangling the article in defiance of WP:POINT. Being an ancient philosopher is a specific qualification for discussing the scientific origin of species. Being an abbot (or a monk) is not. There is a clear-cut difference here. I do not oppose the inclusion of all biographical information--just information that does not have specific relevance to the topic at hand. N6 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is an interesting fact that he was a monk, in the same vein that Darwin received theological training. JPotter 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- While it may be interesting, I think the place for it is Mendel's own article. Note that Darwin's theological training isn't mentioned either--and shouldn't be, I think, for the same reason. N6 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is an interesting fact that he was a monk, in the same vein that Darwin received theological training. JPotter 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
He did most of his work as a monk. When he was promoted he was unable to continue his studies. So call him Monk Gregor Mendel, or Gregor Mendel, a German/Czech/ etc monk.--Filll 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is another thought. If we consider that social and religious controversy is worthy of inclusion in the article, which we do, because there is an entire section devoted to it, then Mendel's occupation is directly relevant to the topic. Trishm 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you can find a reputable published source that makes the point that Mendel didn't see his results as controversial to his religious beliefs, this would be an excellent addition to the controversy section, and I would be all for including it there. Making this point without a source, however, is a clear violation of WP:NOR.
- If I've given you the mistaken impression that I subscribe to religious creationism, I apologize. I think evolutionary theory is one of the great triumphs of science. My stance on the inclusion of the word "abbot" here is solely based on my principles of Misplaced Pages editing :) N6 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's clear we have similar views on evolution. As for the reason for my stance, it's the same as yours. :) We were just educated in different countries. Let's agree to differ.Trishm 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I took a good 10 or 15 courses in Genetics as a graduate and undergraduate student at renowned research universities--I don't recall ever calling Mendel anything but Mendel. Abbot or Monk is not an honorific title (Brother would be the appropriate one)--An abbot runs the monastery. I think this probably qualifies as one of the more silly discussions about edits I've ever seen. It doesn't belong. Orangemarlin 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Can't we give Peas a chance
If Medel's profession is not relevent as a non-scientist, why is a philosophers? Also, regarding friar/monk/abbot, don't you refer to people by the title they achieved, unless you say "then-monk" or something. 199.62.0.252 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous poet
- I agree (I forget who with - I'm confused!) that Greek and Indian philosophers really need identifying labels (to leave them unidentified is perverse), and that Mendel probably does not need one. But it is at least of interest to know his profession (or whatever you call it), and it seems a shame to "censor" it! Given the heated debates, one suspects all sorts of impure motives... Why not leave "abbot" out of the main text but use it in the caption of the picture of Mendel? Snalwibma 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- His profession is not "censored" by leaving it out of this article. It's still mentioned in his own article.
- My main point here is that there is all kinds of extraneous information we could pull over from every wikilink in every article if we wanted to make each article a million words long, but that doesn't mean we should do so. This is just one of many pieces of wikilinked information that is just that: extraneous to this article.
- I don't think it's any more necessary to include his profession in the caption to his picture than it is to include it in the main text, but I would accept that as a solution if it is preferred by most other editors. A caption is at the least a less inappropriate place to include random biographical facts.
- My side of the debate is "heated" because my position on this admittedly minor point is clear-cut and obvious to me. I'm not in the habbit, as a general rule, of capitulating on even minor points just to avoid conflict. N6 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't avoid conflict either. But for me the issue is different, and equally clear cut and obvious - you lose context by defining relevance too tightly. It's a little bit like the fact that Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor. It is obscure, because it is not relevant when studying the philosophy of Aristotle, and it doesn't figure in Alexander's military campaigns. But it explains a lot about how Greek thought spread so thoroughly around Alexander's time, especially into India, where the leading philosophers found Alexander worth talking to. I am wary of packaging the topic so tightly that a single word indicating a relationship that you might not suspect otherwise (i.e. the church doing science) is considered off-topic.Trishm 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- a single word -- the length of the edit is not meaningful. If a single word doesn't merit inclusion in the article, then it should not be included. If it were the policy of editors to allow any small edit because it doesn't do much damage to the article, there would be an awful lot of damage done to the corpus of all articles by such small increments.
- You overestimate the need to include "interesting" information from wikilinked articles. If the reader is skeptical or curious about Mendel's qualifications, they will follow the link to his article. N6 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If Medel's profession is not relevent as a non-scientist, why is a philosophers? -- because ancient philosophers could hardly be called "non-scientists" given that ancient philosophy was largely concerned with scientific thought. N6 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Clean slate/unofficial request for comment about "abbot"
The discussion above is getting hard to read, so I'm providing this space for other editors to weigh in on whether Gregor Mendel ought to be referred to as an abbot (or monk) in the body text (and/or the caption to his picture). N6 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(Side note: I'm going to take a break from debating this point for a day or two. Arguing such minutiae at length is tiring and endangers my sense of perspective. N6 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
- Having looked at the biography, the following passage (slightly trimmed) shows two things about his profession:
- "Mendel read his paper, "Experiments on Plant Hybridization", at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865... published in 1866 in Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn... Elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended as Mendel became consumed with his increased administrative responsibilities"
- So Mendel was a Naturalist. As was Darwin. The term "scientist" largely gained its present meaning after publication of The Origin, and many of Darwin's colleagues were Reverend clergymen, Cambridge Dons, which was his aim until he was diverted into being a wealthy landowner and amateur naturalist. Point two, as has been pointed out, Mendel was not an Abbot at the time of his notable work as a naturalist. Best left out. ... dave souza, talk 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not care what you do. When I learned about Mendel I was probably about 10 or 12 years old and never stepped into a biology classroom again after that. I like to call him Gregor Mendel the monk, but that is because that is how I learned it. Abbot sounds weird to me. He is very famous anyway. George Lemaitre, the guy who did the Big Bang was a Belgian Preist, so it is all sort of funny. --Filll 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It does seem a big discussion for a little thing. Still, heated discussion as it was, there have been no personal attacks. Nor is there any pushing a POV or an agenda on the topic. It is about the general question of what constitutes a good article. We can take heart in that. Trishm 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Calling him Abbot Mendel does seem strange. I understand he did his work as a monk, and then dropped out when the duties of abbot took all his time. Did monks have a title, for instance Father Mendel. That would be appropiate. Otherwise "Gregor Mendel, Austrian monk," seems appropiate. --Michael Johnson 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It is part of good communication and data retention to create a word picture with multiple associations. Giving the reader something more than a mere name helps. If we find it relevant and useful to include an image of a man's face then why not also a single descriptive word that helps the reader distinguish him from others of the same name, that helps the reader form a mental image, that helps the reader form multiple associations for better memory retention, and humanizes an otherwise dry subject. WAS 4.250 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
He should not be referred to as abbot Mendel for several reasons. First off, we don't typically refer to people that way; we just use their name. Second, he's most commonly known as Mendel, NOT Abbot Mendel, and as he was not an abbot at the time it'd be inappropriate to refer to him as such anyway. A mention of him being a monk is alright, but calling him Abbot Mendel is just silly. Titanium Dragon 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gregor Mendel was a scientist. He was also elected Abbot at Brno after he did his work on genetics. He received training in natural sciences at the University of Vienna (which is about 3 km from where I am sitting now BTW). It doesn't help to explain who he was in this article. He has his own wikibiography. Here is a link in English for you to find more about him in a simple narrative style -
- By clicking on the his name in evolution I assume that there is a plethora of information about the man which is why it is hyperlinked to make it easy to find.(I haven't done so.)
- Using a name to describe someone in this way except in their biography (and some of those examples are a bit harsh although true - and I really liked the man BTW) is pushing a POV imho. Examples:
- Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman ...
- LSD taker Richard Feyman ...
- Topless bar frequenter Richard Feynman ...
- Drummer Richard Feynman ...
- Physicist Richard Feynman ...
All have different connotations. Hope I haven't laid that on too heavy. Anyway call the man Gregor Mendel. If the issue of the philosophers is still niggling anyone open a different topic for that. Candy 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should discuss linkage disequilibrium, pop. genetics, and evolution. Spend more time on molecular issues, since that is the modern definition. Selfish DNA and noncoding DNA-junk DNA, transposons. Where is the level of selection-the gene (Dawkin),orgnanism (Darwin), population, deme debate? The gene number paradox- gene number and complexity. Why sexual reproduction?, etc. GetAgrippa 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My Vacuous Response
I have seen the Right Reverend Gregor Johann Mendel referred to in the context of his pea experiments both with and without religious titles such as friar, monk, and abbot. The reason I think it is important is that there is a POV being pushed by a few editors that science and religion are incompatible. E.g., some of the editors and talk contributors on this article have attempted to label the Noah’s Ark article pseudo-science. They have refused to allow a fair characterization of a cited poll that college graduates are three times more likely to believe, and I use the word believe literally, in intelligent design than non-college graduates, in an article on intelligent design and/or creationism.
Unless or until we get the pro-science POV out of this article, and make it more encyclopedic (e.g., by removing the straw man arguments used as a soapbox regarding scientific theory versus the laymen connotation of the word theory when the more difficult and almost as common if not more common contention is that that evolutionary origin of species is just a "scientific theory" and not a "scientific law", a scientific theory that is based on definitions that are still subject to debate by scientists, not falsifiable (or at least not as readily falsifiable) as "scientific laws" such as Maxwell’s equations, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton’s Laws of motion, and Gravitational Law. And yes, the theory of gravity has been modified to describe observed behaviors at the boundaries, but here on planet earth, in ad-hoc laboratories around the world, the modifications for most real world experiments are in the noise of measurement error, and as such, undetectable. That is to say, in regard to the law of gravity, it still stands unmodified unless you have some extra-ordinary circumstances and equipment.
Enough of the rant. If you’re not pushing an anti-religion point of view, the interesting piece of information, being friar, monk, or abbot, deserves to be in the article because:
- It is true
- It is citable
- It is pertinent as an exception to the colored view presented in these evolutionary articles that the church and science were enemies. (The truth is much more nuanced, with the church not only exhibiting strong opposition to some scientific theories, but also in fact being responsible for the promotion of other scientific advancements.)
Trishman wrote: I suggest otherwise, because in this case a profession speaks a thousand words. It says that he was extremely well educated - the church education system in Austria was exemplary, and priests were the most highly educated profession there was. He had time, and a good deal of autonomy. It is also relevant that he was not a scientist as such - it indicates that the scientific method is not limited to the "club" of scientists.
I concur whole heartedly. As I have said, other commentators do include the title abbot, monk, or friar when referring to Mendel in the context of evolution.
Personally, I think this article should be scrapped entirely, and an objective person, such as a person who is not so interested in exaggerating the tensions between religion and science, were allowed to write an NPOV article in its place. The anti-God crusaders, and you know who you are, should refrain from modifying this or any science/religion based article except in the clear case of vandelism (e.g., replacing a whole section with DARWIN WAS A SATANIST, read the Bible for the truth).
Meanwhile, resistance to the reference to Mendel's profession/training/background is strong evidence of anti-religion POV, as well as a POV that wants to characterize science and religion as having only tension.
170.215.15.99 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacous Poet
P.S. In the interest of intellectually honesty, don't merely respond to what you consider my weak points; tackle the most difficult. P.P.S. In any event, having the photograph's caption refer to him as Abbot or Monk (depending on when the photo was taken) will help explain his dress.170.215.15.99 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Vacuous Poet
- Have you noted that biologists rarely use laws while physicists often use laws? These are different sciences and to consider the theory of evolution to be lesser just becuase it is not "called" a law seems to miss the point. You appear to be trying to use a hierarchy of certainty from a rule book of science that does not exist.
An aside, was Mendel ever the Abbot of his monastry? Or is Abbot just a title without rank?(re: the strike out; I just caught up reading above.) David D. (Talk) 06:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- VacuousPoet has been disrupting this article and its talk page with the same crap for quite a while now. I would suggest not feeding the troll while we wait for this latest sockpuppet to be blocked along with the rest of them. N6 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- N6 nice way to dodge the points. Talk about sockpuppet. 170.215.15.99 06:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
- David D. You are right, and even fill, if he is trained in physics, should be able to admit that there is a bit of a rivalry among scientists regarding hard/soft science, and that in fact some physicists look down on those who take up biology as having the skills of being able to learn Latin and being able to memorize, as opposed to being able to precisely quantify and refine a theory, even if it does have a gravitational constant fudge factor. While no rule book exists, the fact that some scientists, e.g., many physicists at campuses across this country, believe that their field's scientific laws, being readily verifiable, repeatable, etc., are a higher quality of scientific theory than "life evolves, and sometimes this can lead to speciation, Genusiation, Familyation, Classation, Phylumation" and so on and so forth. Indeed, even with physics, there is the view that certain pursuits are futile in that they are not falsifiable. If physicists were as loose with science as biologists, we’d have gravitational theories like “objects with mass attract.” To what extent, who cares, it is a scientific fact, and not a conspiracy theory.
- In any event, the soapbox on gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, etc., is just that, a soapbox intended to slay an easily slayed straw man.
- I still think reference to whatever position Mendal held at the time the picture was taken is encyclopedic vis-à-vis the science/religion controversies and their affects on the coloring of these articles. So do a non negligible number of authors who have written on the subject of science in the 1800s.
170.215.15.99 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
Sigh, now you're editing "Abbott"--an incorrect spelling, an incorrect capitalization, and just plain incorrect when referring to his work on plants--in front of his name in other articles. You seem to have no respect for any of the policies of Misplaced Pages, in particular WP:SOCK and WP:POINT. N6 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, another red herring, or should I say orange marlin. Talk about sock puppetry. Also, please do correct any contribution in which I misspelled abbot. Regarding capitalization, I've always thought that a title was capitalized, most especially if it is the first word in a caption.170.215.15.99 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Vacous Poet
I've sidestepped your points only in that you made them after they had already been addressed--and numerous times on this very page when it comes to your general ranting about an anti-God crusade. If you suspect me of being a sockpuppet, by all means open a case.
In general, don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you stop brazenly flouting Misplaced Pages policy. N6 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls, he's a banned user. Revert vandalism appropriately. Titanium Dragon 11:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, while he's blocked and in clear violation of any number of policies, I wouldn't call most of his edits vandalism. Apart from the obvious violations of WP:POINT I don't see true bad faith in all his edits. WP:BAN supports categorically reverting edits by banned users, but WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK don't seem to support similar action against suspected sockpuppets of merely-blocked users (VacuousPoet is not actually banned). I'm personally inclined to treat such edits as part of relevant content disputes until we see a decision on the sockpuppeting case.
On the other hand, if you want to categorically revert his edits, I'm not going to stop you, and I doubt a 3RR case brought against you would succeed. However, given his past behavior, this is likely to lead to endless edit warring. N6 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Very few people are pure trolls, but people do troll and I'd categorize his behavior here as trolling. Just because you make a few good faith edits doesn't make you not a troll or a vandal, just as an established user vandalizing a random page rarely doesn't make them a vandal. The main issue is that he is being disruptive and it is obvious to everyone that he just isn't going to "get his way", and he continually posts just to incite responses, or make edits which get a rise out of people. He does sometimes do constructive things, but he's been banned and has no respect for the rules of Misplaced Pages. If he had just sat and cooled his heels until he got unbanned, we'd not be having this discussion, but his utter disregard for the rules and general disruptiveness make him a troll. Titanium Dragon 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I should not even answer this, but there is no anti-God conspiracy here. I think that it is just a matter of taste as to whether to include "monk" or "Abbot" or not. I learned him as "Gregor Mendel the monk" so I feel comfortable with that. Others did not. I bow to whatever is standard usage in biology. For the purposes of shoving their ludicrous attitudes in the face of creationists, I am glad to demonstrate that evolution is not antiGod by the fact that Darwin was a trained minister, and the author of the Big Bang George Lemaitre was a Belgian preist. So how can these two scientific theories be anti-religious or anti-biblical or anti-god? They are not. And creationist denial of these two theories of science on that basis is unfounded, willfully ignorant and aggresively stupid. I think that Mendel is so well known that there is little reason to put his profession in his title, as is true of Darwin. The philosophers are less well known, so a title is more appropriate. The nonsense above about fact and theory and gravity are just that; pure nonsense. I do not think there is any value to going over it again; there never is.--Filll 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Artificial selection section
It is an odd distinction to say we humans artificially select. I remember a Praexis test exam a few years ago was about hybrid corn and the question asked was it Darwinian evolution. The answer was no because it is artificial selection and not natural selection. I understand, but it struck me as odd. Are we humans not natural? Are we distinct from the other animals such that our interactions with nature and effect on evolution is deemed artificial? Not only did we domesticate plants and animals and mold their evolution but it also altered our evolution. Much like hummingbirds and orchid evolution in they both impact each other. Behavioral choices play a huge role in evolution nor do we fully understand why animals often make choices. It seems we still see ourselves as the apex of evolution and outside other animals. Maybe biodesign is a better word choice. Just a weird thought.GetAgrippa 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at T.H.Huxley's Evolution and Ethics Prologomena. Probably the best treatment of that, evolution of ethics, Social Darwinism, and human society as part of the natural world I know of. Adam Cuerden 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not a weird thought at all. Much of human thought, language, religion, morality, and choices is based on thinking of humans as different in essence from most of the rest of the world. In our lifetime we will create our intellectual successor and find kinship with our pets. WAS 4.250 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is an odd distinction at all. Part of the issue that GetAgrippa has is to do with a misconceived paradox. The paradox runs:
- I am human. I make a change. This is an artificial change. I am natural (part of nature). The change I made is natural. Natural = artificial. There is a paradox.
- You should be able to see the trap there because it is linguistic. Artificial is a term we use to describe something created by humans. Artificial selection in this context is very useful because it describes humans consciously selecting traits. This is quite different to the concept of selection pressure working blindly in nature. With artificial selection the the selection pressure becomes much stronger and genetic drift becomes genetic push (pardon the use of genetic push I don't know if there is a term for this so I just made this up).
- Artificial selection is a special case of natural selection. It's nothing really to do with being elitist as a species it's just that one species (human) has an enormous influence on selection pressure for species it chooses. In the case that artificial = unnatural then its seems to be mostly valid and a fair term to use.
- I considered putting it in the intro for a moment but as it is a special case and there are many special cases it doesn't help the reader identify and become involved with the process. Candy 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- In theory, it doesn't -just- refer to humans; it refers to anything making conscious decisions about selecting a group for traits. So aliens could practice artificial selection as well. Titanium Dragon 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- In practice (that is by biological definition and common definition) it means created by humans. Even hypothetical aliens wouldn't count. Candy 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
My point was the Praexis test question states that artificial selection is not natural selection nor Darwinian evolution. I think it is a capricious distinction and it is still natural selection. GetAgrippa 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to say that it was not natural selection but is part of Darwinian evolution. Darwin used artificial selection as both evidence and a justification for his theory of modified descent. The argument would be that because humans can do it so can natural selective forces. Candy 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Animals make behavioral choices that can select upon traits (like sexual selection birds plummage and lion's mane). The trait gains reproductive success in the population because of the choice. Is a lion choosing a dark maned mate artificial selection? I understand the distinction but biodesign seems more appropriate nowadays anyway.GetAgrippa 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Traits control behaviour. Unfit behaviour will eventually lead to the genes being eliminated from the gene pool. I'm not sure what selection of a dark maned mate means in this case though. Can you explain more please? Candy 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um. Maybe the hybrid corn isn't Darwinian evolution as it's changed through hybridisation rather than variation and selection, whether natural or artificial? Another thought: does Darwinian evolution refer to his ideas or to the modern synthesis? ;) .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the Darwinian evolution specific is a good point. Variation is variation. Hybridization in wild sunflower or snapdragon populations is still evolution by natural selection (it is heritable genetic variation that results in fitness differences and speciation). GetAgrippa 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to chime in and agree with GetAgrippa here: selection pressure is inextricable from behavioral choice by members of a huge swath of the animal kingdom. Humans may be the only organism known to exert selection pressure for the explicit purpose of encouraging favorable genetic traits, but don't feel that this justifies a strict dicotomy between natural and artificial selection. Human brains arose from nature, and human minds are subject to natural influences from their bodies and genes as well as from the natural environment. It is entirely reasonable to define artificial selection as it has been defined, but I think it is a proper subset of natural selection. N6 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Or, I believe, both are subsets of selection. Candy 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Variation
I'm now on the variation section 1st para. I quite like the way this has been written. Some nice editing and thought has gone on here to get a pithy explanation. The changes I am porosoing and need some input on are:
1. Removing the word "new" in "new mutation". I dislike it because mutation implies a change therefore by implication it's new (to that genome). Also, it implies that a mutational change is one that has not occurred before (in any organism or population) which is most unlikely.
2. removing "at that site". The alleles will be at the same locus by definition (unless I've missed something!).
If both were removed this would reduce the paragraph by 4 words and I could then sleep well tonight 8)
Candy 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with that, but would like to see a quick explanation of mutations before removing new: since it's not been described much at that point, we can't presume things are too obvious. It needn't be in that section, of course. Adam Cuerden 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean Adam. Although linked in the intro it isn't explained in the text at all briefly. It does raise the issue also that mutation has its own section further down the page. I'll think a little about this becasue there is a structural issue to the section - just noticing that the sub-heading "variation" would be better as causes of variation or sources of variation for instance. I'll do the "at the site" change - holding on the new (although to be truthful with or without it doesn't make any difference if mutation needs a bit of explanation). Anyone else have a view? Candy 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I suspect that the best thing we can do is simply set out a rule: Every term has to be explained at first occurence. It's probably the only way not to lose FA. Adam Cuerden 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I (DNAunion) changed this sentence before but it has been changed back to:
Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely.
My understanding of fixation is that it is when an allele completely replaces the other, not when it is lost from a population. I propose the sentence be changed to:
Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely - or reaches a frequency of zero and is lost from the population. --DNAunion 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Genes
Can we get away with not defining the word Gene? Adam Cuerden 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The reader has to do some work. The article would be double the length and unreadable if every term was explained. We have to give the reader the fact they have some initiative. Candy 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent Reversion
An automated bot reversed User:Adam Cuerden recent changes to the article. Although I did not agree with them all, most of them looked pretty good in clearing up terminology and language. I didn't consider it vandalism. What happened? Here is the dif ] Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was a partial restore of a version from a week ago, with a few modifications. I suppose it thought I was edit warring or something, instead of just trying to get this past the FA review. Adam Cuerden 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think many of the current revisions have been hastily done. In cases - especially the into, the brevity and clarity is now replaced by an extended and weaker section. There are explanation in the introduction that do not need to be there. Not every term needs to be explained in an introduction. That is what the rest of the test is for. A simple link will do.
- Phrases like "Natural selection is a key part of this process" are fluff imho. It dopes not add to the understanding of the article.
- "Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not." Overwordy and imprecise. The original was marvellous to read. This is imho not.
- This need reverting back or a clear explanation of why it was changed please.
Revision
Since it has its own article, I've tried to trim History of evolutionary thought to a minimum. It probably needs a little more work, but I think this is a start:
History of evolutionary thought
Main article: History of evolutionary thought
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first convincing exposition of a mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: natural selection. However, while he was able to observe variation, infer natural selection and thereby adaptation, he did not know the basis of heritability. He could not explain how organisms might change over generations. It also seemed that when two individuals were crossed, their traits must be blended in the progeny, so that eventually all variation would be lost.
The blending problem was solved when the population geneticists R.A. Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane, married Darwinian evolutionary theory to population genetics, based on work by Gregor Mendel which revealed that certain traits in peas occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were inherited in a well-defined and predictable manner.
The problem of what the mechanisms might be was solved in principle with the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA.
Or what about
History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought
Main article: History of evolutionary thought
Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans. However it was not until the publication of scientific papers by Darwin and Wallace that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first explanation to the general public.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).
Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA.
- I saw a lot of what was written as insignificant to the topic. The reader is directed to a more detailed article. As I am pushed for time I am not adding a few bits of the puzzle that are missing (particularly post Crick and Watson) but this is my suggestion for brevity. It needs some refining but there ya have it ... bare bones Candy 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. Suggest one more sentence, along the lines of "Evolution theory has continued to develop and be revised as new information is found." Also shrink the Darwin pic a bit. Just a first thought, must cook my tea now, .dave souza, talk 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposed move
Evolution to biological evolution. There are many other kinds of evolution. 4.235.129.150 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:Almost every search for it, howvere, will be looking for biological evolution. That's why we link a disambiguation page. Adam Cuerden 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. N6 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:Per Adam. darkliight 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:per Adam. GetAgrippa 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: Evolution, to almost everyone, means biological evolution. And why could the user who proposed this move spend the 2 minutes to become a registered user? Orangemarlin 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because Orangemarlin I suspect they want to p155 us off and waste our time. Candy 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. What about the evolution of the Solar System, the evolution of concepts etc. Those are also evolution, but they're not biological evolution. Voortle 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is why there is a disambiguation page linked at the top of the article. N6 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- Oppose: as per N6, biological evolution is the primary topic. All other topics might want to use titles such as Evolution (sociology) to differentiate. Predominance to the term should be given to biological evolution.--Ramdrake 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: at the risk of repeating what is above, Adam Cuerden states it perfectly. Candy 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What is evolution?
N6 stated that the edit I made to the effect that evolution is not purely biological is contentious. What is contentious about it? The term is well used in a number of fields which are not biological. In fact, I plan to write an article on evolution (not just a disambiguation page, but evolution itself - the mathematical model/systems process which is behind "Evolution as a theory for the Origin of the Species") and there is a conflict because this article is mislabelled. What am I suppossed to call the other article? (Beside the point but, in case you're wondering, as a guy pursuing a Master's degree in a systems related field, I plan on doing a lot of work on the various systems topics - evolution just happens to be one of them.)-Psychohistorian 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think he meant - and I agree if this is right - that adding in rather long disambiguation statements muddles the issue a lot, and doesn't actually add much more than the disambiguation link at the top of the page. The article's confusing enough for new readers - I don't think it helps much to add, if you'll forgive the opinion, somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements into the lead. Adam Cuerden 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- "somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements" While I understand that it might seem like a merely pedantic statement, there really is a significant distinction to be made.-Psychohistorian 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- What is contentious is that you are adding unnecessary words that muddle the introduction. The otheruses template is there for exactly the same reason. This is an article on biological evolution and beyond mentioning that fact at the top of the page, it has no responsibility to discuss any other uses of the word "evolution".
- To the layperson, "evolution" means biological evolution; it is entirely appropriate that this article be named the way it is. Nothing is mislabeled. Numerous articles on Misplaced Pages use potentially ambiguous page names to describe the most common usage, providing an otheruses template with a link to a disambiguation page.
- I'm sure you can come up with a different name for your article. "Evolutionary modeling" and "Evolution (systems theory)" are two possibilities.
- We agree that the article is about biological evolution rather than just evolution. Consequently, it should be called biological evolution. Incidentally, if it were called biological evolution, we could create a seperate article called evolution which actually focused on evolution. While I agree with you that the layperson uses evolution incorrectly, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to educate, not to perpetuate ignorance.
This article is mislabelled.-Psychohistorian 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be grossly inappropriate to move an article on a thing, of interest to a great many people (I believe Evolution consistantly ranks in the top 100 pages viewed) almost universally referred to as plain evolution (not biological evolution) out of that name, and replace it in that spot with an article that is, frankly, rather esoteric and far from the public view. Adam Cuerden 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Psychohistorian: Please see Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. This is a textbook example. N6 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I retract my objection. While I still think my point is right, I have to agree that whether or not my point is right, it's still constrained by policy.-Psychohistorian 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you disagree with the guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, I'd encourage you to discuss your objections on that article's talk page =) N6 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can't think of a single field of study where the word "evolution" out of context leads to the exact understanding of what is meant except in biology. Candy 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to merge misunderstandings section
Hey folks. After reading over the FAR nom, the articles length was one of issues brought up and I have to say I agree. I thought it might be worth discussing merging the majority of the misunderstandings section to another article, as opposed to cutting valuable info on evolution itself.
Obviously some mention of the misunderstandings should be left on the Evolution page, but ultimately I think it should be properly dealt with at length elsewhere, with a Main page link or some such given at the beginning of the section.
We have the Creation-evolution controversy article at our disposal, and since the controversy article exists to cover any notable controversy, and reasons for it, I think it stands to reason that the misunderstandings section really belongs there as one of those reasons anyway. In this case a lot of the material is already (necessarily) covered there, so the merge wouldn't be that drastic.
Finally, it seems a waste to give as much space to misunderstandings of the concept as to the basic processes of the concept.
Anyway, just a thought since something needs to be done anyway. Cheers, darkliight 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I said something about this on my talk page recently, "There is no room for creationism imho in a biological article about evolution except to link to creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution or (depending on the scope of the article), link to any ID or link to historical perspectives (eg Scope's Trial or abuse of Darwin by the media of the day) etc under the umbrella that this is relevent to a reader under the context of science in society.
- So, I would go along with spinning it off. Candy 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that spinning off most of this section would be a good way to trim down the article. I'm not sure whether Creation-evolution controversy is the place to put it, though. In practice, those who hold such misunderstandings are almost universally creationists, but the misunderstandings themselves aren't necessarily relevant to creationism.
Of course, there is already discussion of this type in that article, so perhaps my small objection is moot. N6 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Distinctions between theory and fact
Could somebody explain why (see diff and ), verifiable, citable material was removed, and the rest of the uncited material in the section was kept? Even the bot recognized this as vandelism.
- For example, Ronald Reagan quipped during the 1980 presidential campaign, "Well, is a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed."Cite error: The
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the help page).Cite error: The<ref>
tag has too many names (see the help page).
5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot
Did you read the rest of Evolution as theory and fact that you lifted it from?--Filll 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing about Ronald Reagan's observation at Evolution as theory and fact. Strange that new users who have not previously contributed to this article are allowed to come in and vandelize. 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot
I would presume this was removed because it's an unjustified and misleading statement by a nonscientist. Ironically, the citation provided uses the quote as an example of something Reagan said that is completely out of sync with the reality in the scientific community. It has no more place here than any other misleading quip from any other famous person. N6 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to be the perfect quote in a section that is attempting to debunk misunderstandings, then. 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot
- In the years after Darwin's publication and fame, numerous "predecessors" to natural selection were discovered, such as William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew, who had published unelaborated and undeveloped versions of similar theories earlier to little or no attention. Historians acknowledge that Darwin was the first to develop the theory rigorously and developed it independently. On Matthew, one historian of evolution has written that he "did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors."
- Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
- Unassessed Evolutionary biology articles
- Unknown-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles