Talk:Evolutionary biology - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thompsma (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 12 December 2011 (→Famous evolutionary biologists section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:55, 12 December 2011 by Thompsma (talk | contribs) (→Famous evolutionary biologists section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

A summary of this article appears in evolution.

Evolutionary biology Start‑class Top‑importance

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

Biology Start‑class Top‑importance

	Biology portal Evolutionary biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stuff

Cut from intro paragraph:

One who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist, or less frequently evolutionist.

It is excruciatingly obvious that one who studys any -ology is an -ologist. I don't see why that has to be in the intro. It certainly doesn't tell the reader anything he doesn't already know.

Worse, it blurs the distinction between advocates of evolution (particular materialistic theories) and those who are merely students of the field. Someone who studies stellar objects like stars, galaxies, black holes, and what not, is called an astronomer. As astronomy has progressed, various astronomers have had their pet theories - such as the Big Bang. But not everyone who studies astronomy is a Big Bang advocate, and not even everyone who learns a lot about the Big Bang hypothesis is an advocate of it. Uncle Ed 17:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that the most common short form of evolutionary biologist in everyday use was simply biologist.SheffieldSteel 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of notable figures isn't useful

Recently I rewrote the artificial life page. It had a long list of "contributors" much like this page. These long lists aren't really all that useful, especially in the core article for a field. If you're a lay person, a list of names isn't going to let you suddenly understand a field. If a list of names is to be maintained anywhere, it should probably be in a seperate article.

Preferably, the names of anyone of merit would be included in the article itself as part of a sentence that touches on that person's contributions. For instance, if you discuss selfish gene theory, you would drop Dawkin's name. Any "notables" that can't be "name dropped" in this way probably aren't all that notable afterall. --Numsgil 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the notable names list is that, should someone have the desire to look at other important evolutionary scientists, they can just click the link and be on their way to the biography page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.217.60 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notables?

I would prefer to remove Ohta - to me she is only a minor contributor to the controversy about distribution of mutational effects and definitely not a "notable". If she is included, so please be John H. Gillespie, whose work in that particular field I think has been more influential. Let's try and keep the list tight and sweet, and only include the 20-25 most notable! I'll remove her for now. - Samsara 17:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that Steve Jones, another clear "minor", has been included, I compromised on including Gillespie. Would prefer if all three were omitted.

Edit: include Dawkins in that - maybe Jones and Dawkins could go into the writers section? Or a new transitional section for writers who make some contribution to science, but not a notable one? - Samsara 17:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added Weismann and Malécot to redress the anglophonic bias. - Samsara 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, this is where evolutionary biologists should be listed (by including the appropriate tag in their biographical article) Category:Evolutionary_biologists. So this here page would be the place for a more curated list. - Samsara 22:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've curated the list. I also think it would be nice to give a half-line summary of the contribution each has made, e.g.

August Weismann - advanced theory that only germ cells reproduce; Weismann barrier

The list is still too long. I propose to limit it to people who have made discoveries directly relevant to how evolution works. Lynn Margulis would be an example of someone who is not in this category; rather, I would say she discovered a very interesting just-so-story (in spite of me admiring her work). Watson and Crick, after all, are absent for the same reason! I've already excluded some others who could be said to use evolution as a tool rather than contributing to an understanding of its mechanisms. Debate? - Samsara 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here I don't agree, Tomoko Ohta is an extremely important evolutionary biologist. She's not a very public figure, not known as much as Maynard or Wilson, but her contributions to our knowledge of population genetics and molecular evolution is fundamental, in fact, in all my books on those subjects, she always have more citations than Gillespie (which is also a very brilliant scientist). In my opinion, it's important not to give too much importance to some scientists just because they are known by the public. Personally, I would add Tomoko Ohta (for the nearly neutral theory), and I would cut James F. Crow, Gregor Mendel and Alfred Wallace. --PhDP 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Lynn Margulis has radically reshaped our understanding of evolution by pointing out that some very important steps, like the formation of the eukaryotic cell, arise from endosymbiosis. So, instead of thinking of a single genome as a unit of evolution, it's very important to think about coalitions that can cooperate to the point of fusing into a single organism. I don't think the term 'just-so story' is appropriate here: her theory is widely recognized as true. But maybe experts don't consider this subject to be part of 'evolution'? John Baez (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Less subjective?

Stephen Jay Gould has been moved to the section of "people known primarily for their science popularization" (I should check whether wikipedia is supposed to be British or American English...) I think whether he is primarily known for popularization or his scientific contributions depends on who you talk to. The man in the street will say science pop, the scientist will say "punctuated eqm". Thoughts? - Samsara 13:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Gould, he made some interesting contributions (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, "Spandrels"...) even if it wasn't always easy between him and evolutionary biologists. Dawkins hasn't made any great contributions to evolutionary biology, he's mostly spending time defending a very orthodox view of evolution à la Williams --PhDP 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Monographs

I removed "The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma" and "Earthdance: Living Systems in Evolution" from the "Notable monographs and other works" section. Those are not important monographs in evolutiony biology. I've added Motoo Kimura's book. Perhaps Susumu Ohno's book on duplication ? Also, about Mayrand's "Major transistions", I'm not sure it's a notable contribution to science. His book on the evolution of sex, however, that was a real contribution. However I don't want to change everything without a warning, so if somebody have an objection... ? - PhDP 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

merging in current research section

At present, I don't think 'current research in evolutionary biology' needs its own article. There's a whole separate set of problems with having an article devoted to "current" things, but just as far as article size and scope I think it should be merged in. Opinions? --Alynna 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It has to be noted one of the reasons I moved that bit out to its own article is because it wasn't very good, but had just enough merit that it was being put back into Evolution repeatedly despite reversion out. Since there were a few useful things in it, thought I'd move it out, see if anything developed, and then see about a merging back in.

I'm not sure there's anything all that worth keeping in it at present: You xcould do far better by just copying the introduction from microRNA, a few sections from Evolution, a little abiogenesis, a smattering of Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium, and so on for this article (they'd be duplicates for a bit, but they'd diverge in time.). Perhaps leave it be a week, and if not been improved by then, AfD it? You can do better for article sections elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Adam Cuerden 01:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge, it's practically useless on its own.Meson man 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be merged to History of evolutionary thought, which already has a similar section.--ragesoss 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty of evolutionary biology should have more emphasis

I think that the uncertainty of evolutionary biology should be stressed more. For example, here is what was published by a evolutionist scientists:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14). 128.205.191.52 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately these quote mines misrepresent the picture. There is no significant disagreement on the validity of evolution by any mainstream organisation or group. What these refer to is debate about the particulars of the processes behind it. I recommend you read the entire articles as then you will see how the quotes have been taken out of context. Eldredge's work has been consistently and sadly misrepresented by creationists. I recommend looking also at the talk.origins quote mine project, where dozens of mangled quotes are used (many from the works you cited) to try to argue that there is doubt over evolution. --Davril2020 04:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Davril2020, I don't believe you have shown the quotes were taken out of context. 128.205.191.59 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Independently of possibly being a "quote mining", if indeed it is a legitimate opinion of some researcher, it would far from a consensus or even of opinon held by a a representative part of researchers of the area. Independente lines of evidence of rather distant areas of science mutually support universal common ancestry in a way that would be absurdly unlikely to be just chance, so that makes the major point of agreement that "it happened". It is not as if they first agreed that it happened, but then no one knows why, which evidence would favors that - as the quote sounds a bit like, even if unintentionally. The "little consensus", is that, despite of the abundant amounts of evidence of relatedness for a single genealogical tree of all life, the actual details of the unfolding of the history that led to that, can still be argued in many points and levels. For example, even without the knowledge of mendelian genetics and the theory of natural selection, universal common ancestry would still be greatly supported by evidence, and could still be argued about the mechanism of change in lineages, if hereditary change were somehow environmentally-induced, directed by individual efforts; if it were somehow pre-programmed in an way analog to the developmental process of individuals; or if it was essentially random. And even when some of this points are settled, some points can still be argued within the acceptation of that. Such as, even if it is accepted that mutations are random in respect to fitness, perhaps they are not totally random at the biochemical level. And so forth. --Extremophile 14:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bringing Molecules into the Fold - Simon Conway Morris - the source of the citation.

Firstly, the quotes are by definition taken out of context. They are not in context. No is provided.

Secondly, what is the proposed solution to the issue of "uncertainty" in this field? I suppose we could add a little notice to the top this - and indeed every other - science article that says, "This article documents an area of ongoing scientific research. Scientific theories may be revised as new observations come to light," although, given the subject matter, I suspect our IP address might be happier with "This is a theory, not a fact," an assertion which is, in this context, worthless.SheffieldSteel 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MERGE with Evolution ?

The article Evolution begins with the phrase "This article is about evolution in biology". I therefore fail to see how the the Evolutionary biology article differs. If the present article carried a lot of detail I might be persuaded that there was a case for making the evolution article merge with the current article (which I agree is more correctly named). However, the fact is that this is the shorter article. Therefore I wish to float the suggestion that this article be merged into the other article.--Tom (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about evolution in biology, it is about the scientific discipline that studies evolution, which is called "evolutionary biology". Two distinct topics.--ragesoss (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This article starts with "Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist." Sounds like "evolution in biology" to me. You are straining to produce another article on the same topic as Evolution.Pasado (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is a fundamental one, like the difference between history of art and art history. I agree that this article could be more clear and detailed to make that distinction more obvious, but the content and scope of the two articles are very different.--ragesoss (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

r/K selection theory

could some biologists chip in at the talk page regarding the current status of this theory?·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that merge with Evolution is needed

Posting the topic again since it's been quiet since 2008...As a working evolutionary biologist, I support Tom and Pasado in the above discussion about merging this article with evolution. There are sound reasons why Misplaced Pages does not have separate articles for Genetics=the mechanisms of heredity, as distinct from Genetics=the discipline that studies those mechanisms.... nor separate articles on Biochemistry: the facts and explanations + Biochemistry: the research discipline... nor separate articles on population genetics principles vs. population genetics the field of research. This article needs to merge with or be redirected to evolution. AnneED (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support-Just a small issue however, I don't think there's much here that would enhance the Evolution article, but you could try. Evolution is a completely biological process, so evolutionary biology doesn't make sense. You and I may be the only editors watching this article. OrangeMarlin 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the term "evolutionary biology" does exist, but it is simply the more formal way to name the study of Evolution. Doesn't require a separate article... "merge" or "delete" would be equally good solutions to me, although many articles in the "Evolutionary Biology" series point to this one. AnneED (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Those links can be fixed easily. All you need to do is redirect Evolutionary biology to evolution. I would suggest deletion. If there's anything good here, just add it to the Evolution article. I just don't see much.OrangeMarlin 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I agree there's little in this article that shouldn't be merged with evolution, but I also think that there's room for a separate article here (as ragesoss said a few years ago). In essence, evolution should cover "what is evolution" while evolutionary biology would cover "how is evolution studied", with more emphasis on the history of the academic discipline, major researchers, research centres, professional societies... Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with merging, but not deleting. Evolution is slightly odd as a scientific discipline. I think it was Ernst Mayr who commented on the oddity that everybody considers evolution to be a topic about which they are qualified to offer an expert opinion. It is often forgotten that evolutionary biology is not just an old discovery of Darwin's, but an ongoing field of science. Nobody would make that mistake with regard to biochemistry, but they do with evolution, hence the need for clarity on this point. While it would be nice to say that all biology is evolutionary and hence the "evolutionary" biology is redundant, this just isn't true in practice, eg plenty of biochemistry is not particularly affected by evolution in its scientific practice. It is also interesting to point out the long delay between Darwin and the professionalization of the field. BTW, I have a vested interested here: I wrote the "Current Research" section. It is based on a graduate lecture I gave that was surprising hard to formulate. I do think the material is important.Joannamasel (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, merge. But we have a problem in that evolution is already too long. --Ettrig (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Amusing side bar. I thought no one was watching this article. AnneED got all of you out of your slumber. Hehehehehe. OrangeMarlin 00:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I disagree with Ettrig's contention that evolution is already too long. The problem with evolution is not its length, but its content, which is why we have this problem here. If the content in evolution is improved, we can fix this problem and bring its size down to a manageable level.Thompsma (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. For reasons given by other editors. danielkueh (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Much time has passed by and so far no more opposition to the proposed merger. It seems that the ideal solution would be to make this page a redirect to evolution. Any more thoughts? danielkueh (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be merged with 'evolution'

This article should be about the academic discipline that people call 'evolutionary biology': its organization and structure, its history, its notable practitioners, and its relation to other fields such as evo-devo, genomics, population genetics, population biology, quantitative genetics, phylogenetics and so on. These issues are complicated, interesting, and important. For example, it takes some work to explain how the discipline of evolutionary biology arose and how it related to all these other disciplines! But these issues are *not* what most people will want to learn about when they're reading an article on evolution. As someone noted, it's a bit like the difference between art and art history. Or for that matter, rocks and geology. John Baez (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and I would consider myself an expert in this field. All those things are covered in evolution proper. You are correct about the problems in the evolution article and I am working to have those things corrected.Thompsma (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The merge is strange. The "Evolutionary science" article should talk about the scientific discipline itself, while the "Evolution" article should talk about the fact and theory of evolution. Merging them is like merging Zoology with Animal or Psychology with Mind. --Kyknos (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Why is this discussion going on in parallel in two sections?) The kind of structure that John Baez is asking for is typical for how we treat the more popular subjects in mathematics, and I think it makes perfect sense. But it comes with some problems in the implementation: The less popular part (invariably the one about the field as such) usually gets little attention, and often we have unclear boundaries between the two.

The same situation exist(ed) here as well. It is much harder to write an article that gives a high-level view of a field than to explain its basics. Therefore we typically end up with a mixture of stuff that really belongs in the other article, a little bit of history, a list of subfields, and various crufty lists. That's a sore sight, but simply replacing it by a revert loses important, relevant information and may remove the incentive the fix the problem correctly by rewriting the article.

This article was simply turned into a redirect, and that did lose information. I don't think that's acceptable. At the very least, in a merge, information about the field of evolutionary biology as an academic field (assuming that it is generally seen as one, presumably a subfield or sub-subfield of biology) would have to be incorporated into the Evolution article. But given its size and the fact that this will hardly interest the average reader, that's probably not a good idea, so the present article should simply be restored. Hans Adler 00:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of Evolutionary biology

I propose that Evolutionary Biology is restored as an independent article to distinguish between Evolution as a concept and Evolutionary Biology as a field of research. The deletion discussion can be found in the two section above and here at the Evolution talk page. -- Kim van der Linde 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To add, rewrite can be found here: User:KimvdLinde/EB. -- Kim van der Linde 22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Thompsma (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that the 'merging' of this article in the evolution article was misguided and conflates the field of evolution research with the concept of research, evolution. I think there is more than enough material to warrant a separate article dealing with the field as a separate entity. This is not to say that the current article might need some trimming and that some material is out of place and better suited for the evolution article. -- Kim van der Linde 03:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we set up a draft page of what the restored evolutionary biology article would contain? That would perhaps help clarify a vote. I am not in favor of restoring the old evolutionary biology page in its previous form, but might change my vote if the page were first improved. Most of the material on the previous evolutionary biology page was not of high quality, and/or did not go beyond what could be found on other pages. There are (at least) two aspects to evolutionary biology, the history of the field and current research. The former is now covered quite well in evolution and history of evolutionary thought and the latter in current research in evolutionary biology. I also don't see the justification for the subset of notable evolutionary biologists that was listed compared to the full list. Joannamasel (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a copy here for that purpose. Despite that, I think it is ridiculous to split the article about a complete research field over multiple articles and create content forks to accommodate sections that cannot be dumped elsewhere. -- Kim van der Linde 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose because evolution and evolutionary biology are one in the same. Douglas Futuyma has written several of the cornerstone textbooks on the subject. "I had intended to prepare a digest of Evolutionary Biology (Third Edition, 1998), rendered of its excess, and while much of the structure and some of the text of this book descend directly from that tome, it became clear that a new book was in the making." (Futuyma - preface for textbook titled "Evolution" ). Earlier editions of this book were titled "Evolutionary Biology". How can later editions of the same textbook with two different titles "Evolutionary biology" later shortened to "Evolution" that describe the same material be considered different subjects in Misplaced Pages? There is no WP:V citation that makes the distinction between evolutionary biology and evolution. Find a reference that makes this claim and I will consider this, but until then I'm sticking with Futuyma on this one. Chemistry is a discipline as evolution is a discipline. There are molecules and chemicals in chemistry in the way that there are genes and organisms in evolution. There is the more elaborate title - chemical sciences in the same way that there is the more elaborate title of evolutionary biology. Biology is the study of life in the same way that evolution is the study of life in relation to its history and heritable change. When you visit the biology pages it also describes the science in a section titled research.Thompsma (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I quit frankly think that if you conflate evolution the concept with evolutionary biology the field of research, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Futuyma describes the evolution of his books, not that they are the same. He even explicitly says he removed the excess of the earlier book, so it is obviously not the same anymore. I just checked Evolution and did not find a description of Evolutionary biology as a field in the evolution article. As it should be absent. But let me say it this way. I study evolution. I work in evolutionary biology. I am an evolutionary biologist. I am not an evolutionist. -- Kim van der Linde 12:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that I have lost support in my argument here - so I concede that others see a difference where I do not. However, I don't appreciate the statement that I have no clue what I am talking about. I have read/own both versions of Futuyma's books and they cover the same content. This is a simple point of semantics and conceptual schemes that vary from person to person - which is perfectly acceptable. People can hold different opinions on things, but it is not in the spirit of scientific practice to suggest to those who hold different views have no idea what they are talking about. My understanding is that you are making the distinction between evolution the process and evolution the science. I disagree, however, that evolution the process = evolution, whereas evolution the science = evolutionary biology. If people want to make this distinction, this is fine - but I think it is a kind of post-hoc distinction that I have seen in the literature. It could be a useful distinction to make and I see that Hans Adler has provided a source that makes this distinction and so I am satisfied with this. Good luck!!Thompsma (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolution and evolutionary biology are clearly not one and the same, even if there has been any kind of precedent for supposed synonymy. Evolution is the biological process and evolutionary biology is the study of it. Evolutionary Biology does not drive adaptation and speciation. The use of the redirect from Evolutionary Biology to Evolution is therefore a mistake. current research in evolutionary biology and history of evolutionary thought contain some distinctive discussion of past and current thinking about evolution (the process) that deserves a separate place. However, history of evolutionary thought reiterates much material on evolution-the-process that is already stated in evolution and that should be ruthlessly edited out of history of evolutionary thought. In my view, the distinctive material in Evolutionary Biology, Current Research in Evolutionary Biology and History of Evolutionary Thought should be merged into redrafted Evolutionary Biology. If the consensus is to do this I will happily participate.Plantsurfer (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is really a ridiculous, hair-splitting argument, and as I said elsewhere I find it hard to comprehend that anyone would make it in good faith. It is totally normal for two books that cover the same ground, sometimes virtually the same book, to have titles that literally mean different things. In addition to standard tasks when preparing a new edition ("while the rapid pace of change in the field required that new topics such as evolutionary genomics be introduced and that almost all topics be updated"), Futuyma also got rid of stuff that he was no longer happy with ("Some topics had to be deleted and many others shortened"). While it is normally advisable to preserve the title of a successful book, some changes such as adding new chapters anywhere other than at the end, rewriting things substantially and especially removing stuff tend to cause confusion. ("Just look it up in Futuyma's book" -- "I can't find it" -- "It's on page 149" -- "No it isn't" -- "Maybe your copy is too old" -- "I have the fourth edition, but now I have been in the library and it's not in the fifth edition either" -- "Hmm, I have the third edition".) So they usually require a change of title. For example, if the book was first called "Biology", you might then decide to call it "Life".

We don't require reliable sources for things that are clear to every half-competent speaker of the English language. See WP:BLUE: "Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened)." The difference between the primary (biological) meaning of evolution ("The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations") and the primary meaning of evolutionary biology ("A sub-field of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species and as their evolution, multiplication and diversity over time") is one such thing that simply doesn't require such a proof because it's just too unreasonable to disagree with it.

But to humour you, I have used my Credo account to look the words up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution:

evolution

Change over time. In biology, the process in which organisms are descended with modification from previous organisms; see biological evolution.

biological evolution

Change in a lineage of an organism through time (é. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1831); transformism.
Descent with modification (Darwinism, 1859).
The transformation of the form and mode of existence of an organism in such a way that descendants differ from their predecessors.
Change in a population's allele frequencies between generations (this also called the operational definition of neo-Darwinism).

evolutionary biology: Collective discipline of biology and ecology that studies the evolutionary process and the characteristics of populations of organisms, as well as their behavior and systematics. When the organism is Homo sapiens, cultural processes are also involved, and the collective term becomes human evolutionary biology.

Is the "collective discipline of biology and ecology that studies" etc. a "change over time"? Is it a "process in which organisms are descended with modification from previous organisms"? It clearly isn't any of these things any more than forestry is a forest or tree biology is a tree.

"Chemistry is a discipline as evolution is a discipline. There are molecules and chemicals in chemistry in the way that there are genes and organisms in evolution." Correct in other contexts, but not sufficiently correct for the nuances that you are trying to read into it. The word chemistry came first, and developed out of the word alchemy, a word of unclear origin. It described a scientific field long before it even became scientific. It has developed secondary meanings similar to the primary meaning of evolution (as in: "the chemistry of the cell is complicated"), and if there is any need to distinguish, one must clarify these secondary meanings (as in: "the chemical processes in the cell are complicated"). In the case of evolution, the abstract concept came first and became the seed for an academic discipline sometimes named after it as a metonymy.

"Biology is the study of life in the same way that evolution is the study of life in relation to its history and heritable change." Same problem. In this sentence you have again replaced evolutionary biology by biology as a metonymy for it.

"When you visit the biology pages it also describes the science in a section titled research." Misplaced Pages is of course not a reliable source and many articles are incomplete or even misleading. But let's ignore that problem and look a bit closer. The biology article consists of the following main sections: History, Foundations of modern biology, Research, Branches of biology. It is clear from this that the main content of the article is spread over the two core sections Foundations of modern biology (discussing the stuff one needs to understand first) and Research (giving a quick overview over the more advanced stuff that is still being researched). Under Branches of biology we find many subdisciplines including, tata!, evolutionary biology. Not "evolution". And it has been like that since this edit in December 2009 by User:Narayanese, who was cleaning up the article shortly before the January 2010 GA nomination and changed it from the clumsy and misleading "evolution or evolutionary biology" pipelinked to evolution. That original wording came from serial copyright violator User:Dico Calingal, who introduced the entire section and weirdly called it "All Branches of Biology" . The source for this inaccuracy was this, a post on "BellaOnline, The Voice of Women".

That evolution and evolutionary biology are two different concepts doesn't mean that we have to treat them in different articles. That's still an editorial decision. But I just can't see how the editorial decision of getting rid of the evolutionary biology article (it was not merged into evolution, instead all the content was simply lost) makes sense, given that it leaves a glaring hole in Biology#Branches of biology, where linking to the evolution article doesn't really make sense if the article doesn't cover the field but only its object of study. Hans Adler 09:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's illogical and confusing for readers to have an article named "Current Research in X" without having an article named "X". This sort of articles usually appear as spinoffs of "X" because "X" has become too large. They are not intended to replace "X", since they only cover part of the information available for topic X. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no strict policy reason to merge or to split in this case. The two subjects are not identical but are highly over-lapping. So it becomes a question of things like space and whether there is enough notable material which covers what is not in the over-lap. If the end result is two articles that are virtually identical in what they cover, then this makes the case for merging stronger. Concerning the case for keeping the split, it has been pointed out that one factor worth considering is that Evolution is already extremely long, and requiring constant oversight with respect to keeping details out of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, the draft is a nice cleanup. I think the listed "topics in evolutionary biology" need to be folded into the text of "current research", rather than given a separate text. I don't think textbooks should be listed: they belong more with evolution than evolutionary biology, although listing the monographs etc. seems appropriate. A list of societies and journals would be a good addition to the page. Joannamasel (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to contribute at my page. I want to rewrite the description section as to be far clearer about how evolutionary biology intersects with other subfields at different organizational levels. -- Kim van der Linde 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I was going to help, but I see the draft is already past the stage where I can be useful. Hans Adler 17:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The draft looks like a good starting point, and by focusing on the history of the academic discipline you can cover material distinct from either evolution or history of evolutionary thought. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted we have a category with hundreds of members of evolutionary biologists in the field of evolutionary biology and that in common usage the university of Michigan separates it's biology departments with one as Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Also, the 7 majors of studies at UoM are:

Biology
Cellular & Molecular Biology
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
General Biology
Microbiology
Neuroscience
Plant Biology

where evolutionary is separate field of study. If this word usage holds to be common across most major Universities then of obviously we need a stand-alone article on Evolutionary Biology and it's major contributors. Alatari (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Famous evolutionary biologists section

Hi. Now that it looks like the large majority is in favor of restoring the article, I would like to start thinking about some content aspects. I think a section about some of the better known evolutionary biologists would be nice. Who do we need to include. I am thinking Theodosius Dobzhansky, John Maynard Smith, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr to start with. Who else? -- Kim van der Linde 05:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the math and physics side but I've encountered (and remembered) H. Allen Orr's work in Nature on Drosophila flies and he's been awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal. He is an opponent of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins (oh yeah, maybe Dawkins too... :p) on some issues. Also there was Robert Wiedersheim who did work on human vestigial organs. You saw the list of over two hundred Misplaced Pages has articles dedicated to posted above? Alatari (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that trying to assess who is more important will simply open a can of worms. Much of it is already dealt with in History of evolutionary thought, and the question arises as to whether and why a second treatment is needed, especially since this is not an easy task. If it really is necessary, one needs to start with Darwin, not so much On the Origin of Species, but his work on orchids, earthworms etc. Then one gets Galton and Waldon and Pearson and Bates. Then you have Fisher, Haldane and Wright. Then you have Dobzhansky and Ford going more experimental. Also the rest of the major players in the synthesis, including Simpson (a more important paleontologist than Gould), Mayr, Stebbins etc. Then we get into the molecular era, with Kimura standing out, and other options like Zuckerkandl. Taking it much further (i.e. into the age where most candidates are still alive) without completely disintegrating into controversy as to importance is probably even tougher, although Hamilton stands out. But as I said, I am skeptical for the need for this section, over and above what the history page already does. Joannamasel (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would add Zahavi too, the handicap principle is really important in resurrecting sexual selection theory from its post-Darwin neglect.Joannamasel (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Joanna, I totally agree with you. But I think I have to clarify what my idea here is. There are many who have contributed to the concept of evolution and the understanding of that concept. Those individuals need to be discussed elsewhere. What I am more interested in is individuals who's actual influence is on the field as a discipline. Maybe in a different way to say it, those individuals who helped shape how we study evolutionary processes (and not what we study). I suspect that this will lead us more towards a rather different group of people. -- Kim van der Linde 16:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. But I suspect this distinction, which I missed, will be very, very hard to police. A good source on discipline-building is Michael Ruse's "Monad to Man", who sees discipline building as in some ways the central achievement of the modern synthesis. Fisher, Wright and Haldane laid the foundation of the discipline, but were not good discipline builders. Most important in discipline-building were probably Dobzhansky and Ford. Then in the second most important category I (based on reading Ruse) would put Mayr, Simpson and Stebbins. Of course, discipline building continued after the synthesis, but I don't have good sources for it. The Academic Genealogy Tree at http://academictree.org/evolution might be useful, but is still too incomplete to make reliable comparisons, and mining it for critical hubs would probably count as OR anyway, although it is useful to validate that a particular individual really did supervise many later prominent scientists. James Crow, Dick Lewontin, Dan Hartl and Marc Feldman would surely feature on any list. Joannamasel (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Browsed the lineages some more: add Brian Charlesworth to that list. Joannamasel (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I was meaning. I think starting with the Michal Ruse source is a good start. -- Kim van der Linde 18:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a paragraph borrowed from History of evolutionary thought used in the article would provide a useful linkage and delineate and distinguish this article from that article. Future editors maybe try to merge this article into History of evolutionary thought because they are not clear on how the two articles are to be contrasted. Alatari (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Which paragraph are you talking about? And yes, othyers might feel it is overlapping with the concept, that is why it needs more shaping towards the discipline. -- Kim van der Linde 15:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What you have done looks fine. Alatari (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think we should mention how many major Universities have separate departments dedicated to this discipline or in combination with Ecology. Alatari (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- Kim van der Linde 15:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Another question. I was thinking that we might have to mention Dawkins here, and especially the role he played in popularizing much of evolutionary biology towards the general public. -- Kim van der Linde 15:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that's where the edit wars come in from theists for his non-discipline based work *sigh*. Is there a quantitative measure of how much his books dedicated to just evolution have raised public awareness? Alatari (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is just how WP) works. Anyway, I would say that his "The Selfish Gene" was hugely influential towards the wider public. -- Kim van der Linde 16:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is of course only with hindsight and in the light of the book's career that the presence of the document in the file can strike the reader as curious. Since publication in 1976, Dawkins's gene-eye view of evolution arguing that organisms are nothing else than survival machines for selfish genes, has sold over a million copies.3 The first hardback edition was followed by a paperback edition two years later, by a second revised and enlarged edition in 1989 and a 30th anniversary edition in 2006. It has been translated into over 20 languages and its title has become a set phrase in the English language.
It's influential but not to the level of Einstein or Kuhn. Measuring WP:N debates make my empirical sensibilities scream in pain. Going to bed. Alatari (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about Evolutionary Biology, so I do not expect the front runner to be able to measure up to Einstein or Kuhn....-- Kim van der Linde 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose mentioning Dawkins. He has advanced the public understanding of evolution. This has nothing to do with evolutionary biology as a professional scientific discipline. The public understanding of the latter lags behind the former. BTW, this does not always have to be the case, eg in some parts of physics the public understanding is reversed. Joannamasel (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Kim van der Linde 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a possible list suggesting evolutionary biologists that come to my mind that have received fame or notoriety for one reason or another, beyond those listed above: Ernst Haeckel, Hugo de Vries, D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Conrad Hal Waddington, Motoo Kimura, Leigh Van Valen, E. O. Wilson, Lynn Margulis, John Avise, Masatoshi Nei, V. C. Wynne-Edwards, Carl Woese and John R. Horner. Some of these are not as "famous" as others, but has contributed something of fame. Carl Woese, for example, "is famous for defining the Archaea (a new domain or kingdom of life) in 1977". John R. Horner might be classed as one of the most famous paleontologists in the US - which is close to evolutionary fame. Leigh Van Valen might not be a household name, but the red-queen hypothesis is quite notable. John Avise - founder of phylogeography puts him on the map.Thompsma (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories: