Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:13, 2 April 2007

	Evolution is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 17, 2005 Featured article review Kept February 7, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2003–2005 September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005 December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005 June 12–October 24, 2005 October 24–November 23, 2005 November 28–December 14, 2005 December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006 2006 January 2–February 6, 2006 February 6–March 23, 2006 March 3–April 5, 2006 March 31–May 4, 2006 April 20–July 7, 2006 June 24–August 25, 2006 June 27–August 26, 2006 August 18–October 2, 2006 October 1–November 16, 2006 November 6–27, 2006 November 26–December 20, 2006 December 11–23, 2006 December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007 December 20, 2006 December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007 2007 January 6–9, 2007 January 9–11, 2007 January 11–15, 2007 January 15–20, 2007 January 21–February 8, 2007 February 8–February 18, 2007 February 19–March 12, 2007

Dmurtbergx made his point with peer-reviewed journals and books

Dmurtbergx provided a literature (Journal of Molecular biology,etc.)to support his contention that "Nevertheless, the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is completely uncontested within the scientific community." is not accurate. NPOV demands we change this to the vast majority or something similar-completely uncontested means absolute total which is not true (even if one paper it wouldn't be true-to argue otherwise is idiotic). Despite that point scientist do argue the significance of natural selection in evolution (in a particular circumstance) so even that is not accurate. It is a poor sentence and inaccurate statement. GetAgrippa 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I like changing to "virtually," but the point of the sentence is to emphasize that the basic concept of evolution is not under debate within science. I've taken a shot at resolving the issue with this edit:

Nevertheless, the idea that life on Earth evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor is virtually uncontested within the scientific community.

I think this revision fits its context and avoids the extreme "completely uncontested" phrase. The citation still may not be completely satisfactory. Also, as mentioned above, the rest of this section could use some work. Gnixon 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Gnixon's version - by taking natural selection out, it makes the point unambiguous.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fix the body of the article

My opinion on this article is that people need to stop messing about with the lede and at least fix the obvious and minor issues with the body, such as the presence of different referencing schemes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's a lot of work to get the body up to scratch, so it's probably a bit too easy to play with the lead, which is far better than the rest.

Ah, well. When I'm feeling a little more human, I'll grab a section and work on it. Adam Cuerden 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll make another comment, and that's that I think this article should focus on evolution, not on "things to do with evolution". Those kinds of things are what the "see also" section is usually for, which I know has been omitted from this article by consensus a while back. I would rather have a short "see also" than the kind of trailing cruft that this article suffers from. In case others may find this educational, I'll mention that this particular comment is partly inspired by reviewing the versions that were originally promoted, and, in an early FAR, kept. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making a good point. Can you be more specific? Gnixon 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of evolution is for population biology

The article is fine as an explanation of changes of population gene frequencies. You could as well have defined evolution as relating to the diversification of life on earth, and introduced natural selection as an important explanatory principle. See my addition to the intro related to cladistics and taxonomy.

Please someone correct the spelling of "cataloguing." I can't get to that text.

I am newbie on this page.

Dfarrar 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Scorpionman

After seeing his latest edit to this article, I checked out his talk page and edit history. Can anybody tell me why this user has not been permanently blocked from editing? MrDarwin 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was more impressed that Scorpionman had finally seen the light!  ;) --Plumbago 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas, the shock was too much for him to take it seems, as he was apparently blocked for his own safety. But don't worry, us True Believers (tm) will continue the fight! :) Homestarmy 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I just spent a few hours fixing references on this article. Luckily, I have the flu, so what else am i going to do! I'm going to take a break, but I think an article as scientific and well-done as this one, should have bad references. People make edits, and don't use even the slightest standards for referencing articles. I went along with a few other editors and used the WP:CITET method of references. I happen to like it, because it standardizes the references below. I also found references that were not really worthy of an article like this one; for example, one was essentially a link to a commercial website for seeds. I also dug up the right references in a few cases, fixed some grammar, and put in some commentary about George Bush. OK, I did not do the last one. I thought about it just to see if anyone was reading.

Anyways, can we please keep the references clean. If you notice an edit with just a web link, clean it up using WP:CITET templates. It really takes just a few moments. If you're an editor, spot check references for their usefulness, especially if it's a new edit and reference. I'm trying to be civil, but I think I'm going to make someone recite the Origin of Species backwards if they mess up the references!!!! Yeah, I'm retentive, but you have to be in my career. Orangemarlin 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

for a picture of a chicken with four legs

for a picture of a chicken with four legs see here.......I will add later to the article in morphological evidence CrystalizedAngels 14:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy S***! MarkBuckles (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that more likely to be some sort of siamese twin, though? Adam Cuerden 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut references

These are excellent references, and would be very good for the HGT section, but are a bit much for the lead.

• Bergthorsson, Ulfar, Aaron O. Richardson, Gregory J. Young, Leslie R. Goertzen, and Jeffrey D. Palmer (December 2004). "Massive Horizontal Transfer of Mitochondrial Genes from Diverse Land Plant Donors to the Basal Angiosperm Amborella". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101 (51): 17747–17752. Retrieved 2007-03-18.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Citing numerous additional sources, the article states in the discussion section that, "plant mitochondria frequently fuse, with their genomes recombining, which makes it easy to imagine multiple mitochondrial genes being acquired in a single event involving whole-mitochondrial transfer." This is process is relatively common and well studied in bacteria.

• Masly, John P., Corbin D. Jones, Mohamed A. F. Noor, John Locke, and H. Allen Orr (September 2006). "Gene Transposition as a Cause of Hybrid Sterility in Drosophila". Science. 313 (5792): pp. 1448-1450. Retrieved 2007-03-18. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

• Richardson, Aaron O. (January 2007). "Horizontal Gene Transfer in Plants". Journal of Experimental Botany. 58: 1–9. Retrieved 2007-03-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref>

We should definately add these - and the references left in the lead - to the section on gene flow (encompassing HGT, hybridisation, etc) Adam Cuerden 11:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are there references in the intro at all? The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article and shouldn't contain info that isn't elsewhere in the article. The references should go in the article body. Joe D (t) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial topics usually end up needing them anyway, as it helps protect them from drive-by POV, by setting a "standard" that must be lived up to. Adam Cuerden 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I cut those three references but I guarantee you that someone will now put in a "need citation" tag. Then I'll put them back in, I guess? The alternative is to add in parentheses :(see: Mechanisms of evolution: New Species below)", and create a new subsection.Valich 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Richard Dawkins article solved this problem by adding HTML comments stating that the reference was later in the article. Joe D (t) 11:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sampling Error"

In the lead, can we come up with a way that "sampling error" in relation to genetic drift can be phrased in a more layperson-oriented fashion?--EveRickert 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"...as over large numbers the random changes tend to average out, but, in small populations, the fate of any one individual (and all his genes) matters far more." - A little wordy, but you could always use half of it (large or small).Adam Cuerden 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... nice start, but let's keep working on it.--EveRickert 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the easiest way to fix a troublesome phrase is to just delete it. I think the simpler sentence still gets the point across, and more detail can be included in the genetic drift article.--EveRickert 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I definitely want to keep that idea in there. Drift is hard to understand and important to understand. It is ESPECIALLY important that people understand evolution as a stochastic and not a deterministic process, including selection. I think a second clause simply explaining "sampling error" might work, but I'm also not overly concerned with making the idea of "sampling error" more accessible simply by making genetic drift less so. This is the article on evolution; our allegiance should be first to clarifying ideas relevant to that. Graft 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember to balance completeness with conciseness in the introduction. Genetic drift is an important modification to the idea of evolution by natural selection, but I'm not sure it's so important that it needs to be explained in the introduction. Gnixon 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about natural selection, it is an article about evolution. Graft 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. If I was introducing evolution to someone who hadn't heard of it, I would say something like... 1) we have all these different species because they evolved into their present forms; 2) they got there over a long period of time, mostly by natural selection picking from among random variations (this is where Darwin and everyone else went Aha!); 3) sometimes statistical effects are important, especially if populations are small (this is an importan issue if you're trying to understand evolution more deeply). I'm just saying that (3) might not make it into my introductory paragraph. I agree with Eve's comment below. Gnixon 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and Eve's right. I withdraw my objections. Graft 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Woot! Consensus has been reached! (Dontcha just love it when it's that easy?)--EveRickert 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Woot-woot! Yeah, baby, consensus---go all of us. This was a good discussion. Now can we come up with a good edit for the article? Gnixon 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reader is not going to come to an understanding of genetic drift via the lead. We want to keep them reading so they get to the more detailed sections, not have them stumble early on over unfamiliar jargon. Remember the lead is an introductory overview.--EveRickert 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "simple" and "dumbed-down" ("horse with favoured odds" ??). At least a mention of genetic drift in the lead is necessary, for a simple reason: the uninitiated reader might come to believe that evolution = natural selection, a common misunderstanding that we should combat. Of course this does not mean that we should absolutely fudge a complete discussion of genetic drift in the lead. The current version seems OK to me on this point.--Thomas Arelatensis 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right... The question wasn't about whether to cover genetic drift, just whether to use jargon, i.e. the term "sampling error," to describe it in the lead.--EveRickert 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm not wedded to that horse analogy. I just thought it was a good way to convey the mix of the action of drift and selective pressure. Feel free to ax it if you have a better notion. Graft 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The comments from MandaClair below are relevant to this discussion. Gnixon 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Proposal to move Evolution to Theory of evolution

Orangemarlin do me a favor. ( I don't really expect you to, but im requesting you to anyway)
Please look into a series of movies that are called "Incredible Animals that Defy Evolution"
They give one of the most well organized arguments iv'e heard.
Thank you!
( and by the way I dont intend to revert to namecalling, even if someone else does, nothing destroyes the point of constructive debate as easily)

Previous commenters have objected to inclusion in this Talk page of questions already answered in the FAQ. There was even a proposal to move them to a special archive called 'Evolution debates'. In lieu of that, to save space here and to maintain visibility of old discussions, how about I 'box up' the above discussion using a Show/Hide pair of templates, such as {{hat}} and {{hab}}. Those names are short for {{Hidden archive top}} and {{Hidden archive bottom}}. I have done so for the above thread so you can see what it looks like. If you disagree, simply remove the pair of templates. I'll wait for feedback before doing this elsewhere EdJohnston 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea even better than the "Evolution Debates" archive, but others might object to it for the same reasons, i.e., that these discussions should simply be deleted. I'm worried that outright deletion (or moving to users' talk pages) will only stoke more flame wars, so I like the hat/hab archives. It would be nice if the template didn't say the archive should not be edited. By the way, this seems like a nice way to archive all long discussions, as long as the template doesn't say it can't be edited. Maybe we could consider hat/hab archiving all comments between the initial post and the final resolution (if available). Gnixon 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution statements

This article states it as fact that evolution happened. It is an unproved theory. It is simply a belief system. Anyone can call me a crazy creationist if they feel like it, but it doesn't change this. And if creation is an idiotic belief that only people who can't or won't think believe in, why not put the arguments for it and against it in schools and musems? (Please don't say that creatonists dont either. Its not true) Are the evolutionists scared of something? I think they are. And despite what evolutionists want us to belive, there are no rock layers of fossils of increasingly complicated organisms. anyone who doesnt like these statements send me a message. ````oddball 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddball 2002 (talk • contribs). 20 March, 2007.

This issue is addressed in the FAQ. Editors should remember to keep a civil tone with each other and avoid reigniting long-settled debates. Gnixon 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial

I think this article should be tagged controversial because many people don't believe in evolution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.117.139 (talk • contribs)

This issue is addressed in the FAQ. Gnixon 18:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...the hell?

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Why on earth has this returned? It's like a hideous vampire, returning from the dead to kill off good writing, and to keep its undead, over-edited corpse alive by feasting on the life of the article. REWRITE NEEDED BADLY!!!! Adam Cuerden 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I put it back because rewriting is better than deletion (that is, we all agree Darwin and Mendel, etc., need to be mentioned in the intro). If it's deleted, it'll take forever for it to come back. Its festering corpse will more rapidly encourage rewriting. Graft 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do hope we drive the stake of rewriting through its heart soon. Adam Cuerden 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of the unexplained mention of Mendelian inheritance, I kind of liked it, though I don't think it adds much to the lead as it is now. What specifically don't you like about it, Adam? If there was a discussion of it before, can you link to it?--EveRickert 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Various things - it didn't handle Wallace or earlier evolutionists well, the second half of it about "With its extraordinary explanatory and predictive power... central organising principle of biology, etc." bears no relationship to the first half, and, lastly, it WILL NOT DIE!!! It's the only part of the lead that's identical in phrasing to the ancient lead of a year ago, despite losing all the transition between its halves. We don't need no stinkin' Cytochrome-c in our lead. DIE YE VESTIGE OF THE EVOLUTION ARTICLE'S EVOLUTIONARY PAST! Adam Cuerden 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Input appreciated

I would greatly appreciate input in discussions surrounding content of Jewish reactions to intelligent design. My interference appears to have gotten this and Jewish opposition to evolution blocked. I apologise. But I think both articles need serious attention less they waltz into OR and essay gray areas.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

social and religious controversies

There needs to be a description about the atheist agenda to promote atheism by evolution materialism. Especially since dawkins has labeled teaching children religion is 'child abuse' like my edit that was just undone. its clearly that such a controversial topic is not only driven by passionate religious individuals as well as atheist naturalists. I think this is evidence since gravity is considered a theory and evolution is considered a fact. Wyatt 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of theory vs. fact is addressed in the FAQ for this page. I believe the relationship between atheism and evolution is discussed at Objections to evolution, but not all of that article's information will fit in the summary on this page. Gnixon 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Single Last Common Ancestor

All species are not descended from a single ancestor as the introduction wrongly states. The origins of life and consequent speciation did not have just one single last common ancestor. Amongst unicellular organisms a tremendous amount of lateral gene transfer took/takes place. Intro needs to be revised Valich 06:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Universal Genetic Code

Please do not use this term. It is extremely out-dated and misleading. Valich 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Valich is right and I'm shocked that anyone would disagree with this, when Genetic Code states clearly that the canonical genetic code is not universal. One defender of "universal genetic code" seems to understand that it is not universal, but says that this term "brings up the right images". If there is no literally correct way to defend the "right image", then its probably not "right" is it? In fact, the wide distribution of the canonical genetic code, though it is not universal, leads to the inference that it is ancestral to all of cellular life. To make this inference seem definitive by loading up the rhetoric with incorrect terms is poor scholarship. Dabs 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LUCA and the meaning of the Tree of Life diagram

Based on Thomas's suggestion, I've edited the the intro to say

Evidence such as the wide distribution of the canonical genetic code indicates that all known cellular organisms are ultimately descended from a common ancestral population.

This is a small change from the text that was there before. Is it satisfactory to everyone? If so, the next task would be to cut most of the 4 billion citations at the end of the sentence. Cheers, Gnixon 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice, except I think the phrase "canonical genetic code" is too jargony for the lead. Can we find a phrase that is a little more accessible to the novice reader?

Also, the last 2 paragraphs of the horizontal gene transfer section of the page could use some reworking in light of the outcome of this discussion.--EveRickert 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sexy enough

Anyone else find it a bit weird that we include discussion of HGT but not of sexual reproduction? Does this seem to be needlessly privileging phylogenetics? Sure, HGT confounds that, but otherwise I don't see why it's any more or less germane than sex. I seem to recall that we had sex in here in the past and excised it... anyone have any feelings on the subject? Since this is an open(ish) evolutionary conundrum as well, it maybe bears inclusion. Graft 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that it's because it's presumed sexual reproduction is already understood, but this is probably a bit mistaken. Still, we don't need to go into much detail - how about a paragraph on genetic recombination and independent assortment in the basic processes section? Adam Cuerden 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah! And then nature goes and does something like this.--EveRickert 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good EveRickert! So much for Muller's ratchet. There are always exceptions to the rule in biology. Like bacteria (planctomycetes ) with nucleus like structures, and fish that have evolved placentas. Makes things interesting!! I noted in a recent Science edition talking about the size of genomes and abundance of non-coding DNA that it maybe proportional to the size of the cell or metabolic rate such than natural selection may select for larger genomes. They had good accordance with osteocyte size and genome size and looked at fossils and present life. Plants followed the cell size trend. Interesting reading. It reminds me of Darwin's finches beak differences, which I always assumed that the genetic variation was either influencing neural crest and bone morphogenetic protein so something directly related would be the gene in question, yet calmodulin seems to be the culprit. Examining genes and traits is not always straightforward. Back to the topic SEX! I get off track sometimes-it reminds me of the ole joke-"Meanwhile ,back at the oasis, the Arabs were eating their dates." Oops, sorry about that. I must have calligraphic Tourette's syndrome. Is there no cure??? Hee, hee, hee. GetAgrippa 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory or Fact

Take a look at the following. All these state evolution is a theory. Let me quote from the last link "Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is a current best explanation." It does not say it is a fact, it says it is a theory and like all theories it is the best explaination that we have. Also I have asked a science teacher that I know if Evolution is a theory and her answer was "Yes." I think she knows more about this than many of you. Thanks:) James, La gloria è a dio 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed. Please see the FAQ. Gnixon 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

This article is a bit long, couldn't we just remove the sections that have their own articles and just link to those articles or just give a brief summary of each? It takes really long to open this on my dialup internet browser. BTW, the talk page should be archived again Ratso 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it is to long at all. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do ! --Thomas Arelatensis 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too! (Notice discussions above about the length issue.)Gnixon 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There has not been a consensus for a further reduction of the length of Evolution since the debate on 8 February. At that time, a number of previous contributors argued that it was already short enough, at around 65kb, and they suggested we not target a specific length. The article shrank a lot between mid-December and mid-January, and I agree with the February 8 consensus that it is now short enough. Though one might argue that there are still some details that might be omitted in specific sections to reduce complexity (the type of items that Silence used to call 'trivia'). The article currently stands at 71kb. EdJohnston 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty complex topic: To give a proper overview needs some length, and all those references are probably extending it a fair bit.

Anyway, I think every section has a subarticle, so that'd reduce it to... the lead and a bit of introductory material for the supergroupings. Adam Cuerden 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that everyone is constantly adding their caveats and extra bits of detail, and they tend to add them too high up in the hierarchy of the article and it's sub-articles. People read the article and see their favorite topic given only brief mention, so they add several paragraphs at a level of detail better suited for a "main article." Or, they glance at the intro, see some nuance missing, and add 10 extra clauses to an already unwieldy sentence. The article naturally swells over time, so it needs to be regularly trimmed back if it's going to stay (become?) readable. (IMHO) Gnixon 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary pumps

Hi there, I'd like some expert advice on this interesting theory within an article up for GA review. I've moved part of the article onto the talk page, as this doesn't match what I understand by the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Any comments on this talk page would be welcome. TimVickers 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Archival

This talk page tends to fill up quickly. Can we agree on a policy for archiving old discussions? I would suggest the following:

• Keep any discussion with a comment less than 2 weeks old. Regularly move older ones to the archives.

• For very long but ongoing discussions, use the hat/hab tags to hide older comments. Use the reason= parameter to explain. For example, {{hat|reason=Older comments hidden to save space. Feel free to continue the discussion below.}} produces

• When someone raises a controversial subject that is addressed in the FAQ, leave the original post, but immediately use hat/hab on the inevitable flamewar that follows. For example,

Evolution is unproven! It's a theory, not a fact! User:GenesisTellsAll

What do you guys think? Gnixon 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion Gnixon. The warning banners and FAQ do little to stop POV pushing and vandals, so addressing it in the Talk but hiding it seems reasonable. It is difficult enough to get consensus on the topic from evolution enthusiast without wasting time addressing side issues not related to the topic. I have to admit I was initially naive to the depths of concern over creationist and ID vandalisms-I thought the editors paranoid, but was I wrong. Fill spends quite a bit of time refuting such claims from creationist and ID proponents. I am shocked as some seems less than honest (not all I should amend)which does little for their cause. GetAgrippa 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Credit where due: the hat/hab archives were EdJohnston's idea. We could all try harder to keep our comments tightly focused and avoid starting off-topic discussions. Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd propose regular archiving in a simple manner, not topic-by-topic, which is too labor-intensive to be done regularly by a human, and prone to error. It probably requires a bot to do topic-by-topic archiving without tons of work, and the available bots leave something to be desired. The hat/hab scheme for boxing up topics seems fine for questions answered in the FAQ. In general I'd suggest that this Talk page is too large when it gets over 120 kb and that the archiver should leave the most recent 80kb in place. EdJohnston 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I didn't mean that each topic should be archived separately. I imagined someone glancing at the page and saying, "none of the topics above here have comments within the last two weeks, so they all get archived." As for keeping the page to 80-120 kB, I think it's better to decide a reasonable time since last comment and cut on that instead. (Of course, keeping the page small puts an upper limit on that time.) This page fills up so fast that cutting on size will often remove ongoing discussions. Editors shouldn't miss the chance to comment on recent topics just because they haven't logged onto Misplaced Pages in the last 3 or 4 days. Gnixon 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed when it happened, but this new archiving methodology isn't very useful. I remember there used to be, at the top of the discussion page, a great reference source that had archives of discussions by topic. For example, the "Evolution is only a theory" topic, which happens over and over again, had it's own link. One could go and read it, maybe realize "oh someone's said that, and it's been set aside." Now I can't find all that stuff. Anyways, all IMHO. Orangemarlin 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving by topic is really useful, but also tons of work to maintain. I suspect people switched to the simpler scheme out of laziness. Keep in mind that this talk page generates about an article's length of comments every couple weeks. See also the discussion about an "Evolution Debates" archive and its deletion as a POV fork. Gnixon 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. It was nice to refer people to old arguments. If they didn't read them, we could beat them up mercilessly. It made my days so much happier. Orangemarlin 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone created such a table at the top of the page with links to discussions in the archives. Gnixon 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

intro: suggest removing reference to "types"

The term suggests typological thinking, not required in the context. Also, many would associate speciation with reproductive isolation. I suggest "at some point diverging populations become sufficiently distinct that they may be considered distinct species, in particular if the capacity is lost for interbreeding between the populations. Dfarrar 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution

There is a need for a section about Theistic Evolution. Talk about Evolution's status in big religions such as Islam, and Christianity, and Hinduism, etc. Believe it or not, there are Muslims, Christians, and Hindus who believe in Evolution. Armyrifle 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Theistic evolution.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a link somewhere in the article might be nice. i kan reed 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Social and religious controversies section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy (2)

The Social and religious controversy section is probably the most neglected one in the article, but it is one of the most important for many of the new posters on this discussion page. The section has long had "citation needed" tags. It discusses both objections to evolution and controversial social theories derived from it, but the two topics are not well-separated. The paragraphs seem to have each been developed independently and don't transition well. Can we try to improve things? Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I attempted a major revision several days ago. I thought it would be uncontroversial since I only used the previous text and the introductions of the sub-articles, but the change was reverted by someone who preferred to discuss it here first. In response, I've created a Work in Progress page and copied my edit there. I would appreciate if people would take a look, comment at the bottom of the page, and make improvements. Thanks!! Gnixon 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the users who made comments at the WIP page. I've recently made several edits to the Controversy section, keeping their comments in mind. Particularly, instead of trying to copy in the introductions of related articles, which made the section too long, I've simply organized the section with subsections and cut redundant material. One editor argued for cutting the "Social theories" stuff, but I've left it in for now. I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. Let's work hard to keep this section short, well-referenced, and free of both anti-evolution and anti-creationist POV. Gnixon 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Observation

Where are the examples of new species observed to come into existence? I've heard claims about medicines being invented by evolution and things, but I don't know of any where that evolution has actually been observed? This is different than seeing a chain of similar animals, because those animals are actually distant from each other even if they followed a similar path. All I've seen is beaks getting longer or shorter, but no real macro changes or new features. It would be nice to have some statements about it, but I may have just overlooked them. Wyatt 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue is addressed somewhat in the FAQ. You'll also find information in Objections to evolution since some have argued that "macroevolution" has not been observed. Gnixon 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt is right, macroevolution is the main objection in recent memory. On first thought it could be unburied from Objections and placed in its lead, which would then be replicated to Evolution. I could see some objecting to this as too specific for the lead; but to not have macroevolution in the content of the Evolution article (templates at the bottom/side don't count folks) seems to be a glaring blind spot. - RoyBoy 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Mandaclair recently made some interesting edits to the introduction. They were quickly reverted because they changed the lead significantly, adding a lot of detail, but her paragraph defining evolution seemed useful, and I wonder if we could work it in somewhere without making the lead too unwieldy:

Strictly speaking, biological evolution is the process of change over time in the heritable characteristics, or traits, of a population of organisms. Heritable traits are encoded by the genetic material of an organism (usually DNA). Evolution generally results from three processes: random mutation to genetic material, random genetic drift, and non-random natural selection within populations and species. In common vernacular, evolution is also used more generally to refer to the greater outcomes of these processes, such as the diversification of all forms of life from shared ancestors, and observable changes in the fossil record over time.

The way she enumerates three processes and separates the technical definition from the vernacular could guide the introduction and first few sections of the article, especially if we can find a way to avoid getting too technical too early. By the way, she also made several good small changes to the intro that were reverted with the others. It'd be nice if someone went through the history and copied some of the changes back in. Gnixon 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, nor play one on TV, so it really sounds good. I don't like "biological evolution", for no other reason than I'll bet some creationist will beat up on the point that it's not really "evolution". But I could be paranoid after several months of bickering with creationists on here. Furthermore, I would like one of our more scientific types to review the sentence. Sometimes someone might simplify technology so much, that the essential meaning is lost or confused. Mandaclair is a new editor, so I'm always wary until they have gone through several rounds of discussion on these pages. But, for a first pass, I'm pretty impressed. Orangemarlin 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Suggest changing "common vernacular" to "everyday speech." I will see what I can do about incorporating some of the other edits.--EveRickert 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions from MandaClair

Hi. Thanks for listening. As I mentioned on a user talk page somewhere, there is nothing "creationist" about specifying "biological evolution" as a way of distinguishing life from other systems that evolve, such as languages, societies, or the universe as a whole. And in general, I recommend not worrying too much about what creationists will (or won't) "beat up" upon, because very little progress is to be made in those dialogues, anyway. Don't write this article with "defense against creationists" in mind. The only sensible thing to do is ignore them, and write the best article you can.

I very, very, very strongly agree. Gnixon 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the other changes I made last night, and the rationale:

Natural selection, one of the processes that drives evolution, is a self-evident mechanism that results from the difference in reproductive success between individuals in a population. Natural selection occurs due to two biological facts; 1.) the existence of natural variation within populations and species, and 2.) the fact that all organisms are superfecund (produce more offspring than can possibly survive.) In any generation, successful reproducers necessarily pass their heritable traits to the next generation, while unsuccessful reproducers do not. If these heritable traits increase the evolutionary fitness of an organism, then those organisms will be more likely to survive and reproduce than other organisms in the population. In doing so, they pass more copies of those (heritable) traits on to the next generation, causing those traits to become more common in each generation; the corresponding decrease in fitness for deleterious traits results in their become rarer.

The important thing about selection is that it is a *self-evident* process, in that: given the undeniable, observable biological facts that 1.) organisms vary, 2.) most variation is heritable 3.) organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive, and 4.) some heritable traits will influence reproductive success, it *necessarily follows* that heritable traits that increase reproductive success will increase in frequency, while heritable traits that do not increase reproductive success will decrease in frequency or disappear entirely. This is why a very common reaction in the scientific community to the publication of The Origin, was basically along the lines of: "well, DUH, how come *I* never thought of that?" It is self-evident to any thinking, rational human.

Also, it is tempting to think of all evolution and natural selection as "adaptation to the environment", but that is a somewhat naïve point of view, mainly in that it is incomplete (many traits are preserved due to random factors, or evolutionary constraints that prohibit their disappearance, i.e. genetic linkage or developmental constraints. Adaptation need not enter into the preservation of traits over time.) I strongly recommend toning down the adaptationist tone of this article in general. Natural selection is perhaps best understood if reduced to the self-evident mathematical outcome of perpetuation of certain heritable forms due to the simple fact that there are more copies available to reproduce, and they are better at reproducing. Yes, adaptation occurs, but it is not the driving force. Mutation, drift, and selection are the driving forces.

Also, any discussion on drift *must* point out that drift applies to sexually reproducing organsisms, since drift is generally understood as a result of random matings. Thus:

In sexually-reproducting organisms, random genetic drift results in heritable traits becoming more or less common simply due to chance and random mating.

Again, with the concept of speciation and divergence, sexual reproduction must be assumed if you're going to invoke "interbreeding". Many organisms (including eukaryotes) are asexual, and so the ability to interbreed cannot define or describe the divergence process. Thus:

With enough divergence, two populations can become sufficiently distinct that they may be considered separate species, in particular if the capacity for interbreeding between the two populations is lost.

If "bold editing" was a bit easier to accomplish, I might recommend the following:

• strip down some of the basic genetics in the article. Keep it streamlined toward Evolution. Much of the article seems like it should be a genetics article, or population genetics article. Those topics definitely play into Evolution, but in my opinion, this article gives them too much space.

Strongly agree. Gnixon 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• include a new section entitled "common misconceptions about evolution". These can be documented, and such a section is extremely valuable to persons approaching this subject for the first time.

What misconceptions do you have in mind? A similar section once existed, but it sort of turned into "Why Creationists' objections are wrong because they don't understand stuff." That caused lots of problems. Gnixon 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stabilizing selection, directional selection, and DISRUPTIVE SELECTION are the three MODES of natural selection, and they are not really correctly described here (for example: all three of them favor the "beneficial" alleles and select against "harmful" ones.) Artificial selection should not be invoked in this section -- it is trivial (arguably meaningless) in the grand scheme of things, and probably better discussed in the section about the history of Evolutionary thought, since Darwin began his treatise with an examination of artificial selection, and reasoned: if humans can produce breeds and varieties (as he called them), then why couldn't nature?
• As mentioned, reduce the adaptationist language as much as possible. Adaptations certainly can and do occur, and they are important, but it is also very important to get across that "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong", etc. "Fitness" has nothing to do with "strength" or "being better" (although it can). Fitness is reproductive output -- pure and simple -- and nothing else. It's important to keep these concepts separated.
• The discussion of speciation can be improved, mainly by introducing the problem of species concepts (and how no species concept is universally useful), and how the most important thing in speciation of sexual organisms is not necessarily geography (allopatry or sympatry), but reproductive isolating barriers of ANY kind. They may be geographic, but they could also be ecological, biochemical, behavioral, etc.
• The Huxley graphic showing the skeletons of hominids is all right, but it unfortunately resembles all-too-closely the kind of iconic left-to-right linear evolutionary "progress", that doubtlessly causes Steve Gould to roll over in his grave, and will cause me to do so as well when my time comes. The image presented here is not exactly the kind of "linear progress" graphic that is so common, but I am sure we could find a much better graphic to illustrate the concept of *homology* being the signature of evolutionary descent.
• A lot more can be said in the "History of Evolutionary Thought" section -- specifically, on the kinds of *observations* that had been around for years, that were consistent with Darwin's explanation. For example, the Linnean system of classification predates Darwin and knows nothing of common ancestry and descent, yet its structure as a set of "nested groups" very neatly reflects the true branching nature of the history of life.

Even the main article on this subject looks like it could use some work. There seems to be confusion about what evolutionary ideas predated Darwin and how fast his ideas were accepted. Gnixon 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some fleshing-out of the very true statement that "evolution is the organizing principle of all biology" would be justified on this page.

Here's the sort of topic that could really benefit from an expert's perspective. Gnixon 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some ideas. Take 'em or leave 'em. I'm willing to help, as long as the debate and round-&-round is kept to a minimum. Kind regards, Mandaclair 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions from an expert in the field. Thanks, Mandaclair. Let's get to work! Gnixon 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A final note, for now:

The main reason I have taken an interest in this article, is because University students are using Misplaced Pages more and more as an authoritative source -- a fact that is potentially exciting on one hand, and terrifying on the other. As someone who interacts with biology majors on a daily basis, it would make my job (and my colleagues' jobs) much easier if we helped out in making popular resources (like Misplaced Pages) as accurate as possible. Otherwise, we spend a lot of time helping students "unlearn" what they thought was true about Evolution (such as: it's all adapation, or it's all a directional process of improvement, or the notion that simply because we refer to "evolutionary theory", that therefore evolution must be some kind of tentative hypothesis that has not been "proven" one way or another... you get the picture.)

Unfortunately, I am sure that many academics in many fields are deterred by the too-many-cooks environment at Misplaced Pages, and yet, they may feel compelled to help out in some way -- especially if their students use Misplaced Pages. All of that being said, the Evolution article (as it stands now) does cover most of the main points, and is a decent introduction to the field and its concepts. It could just be a lot clearer, a lot more accurate on some fundamental points, and it could cite more (and better) examples, in many places.

There really are a lot of cooks stirring this pot, but a little word of mouth around the department could go a long way toward increasing the proportion of master chefs. I've wondered sometimes about the idea of creating, for example, a "HarvardBiologyProf" account on Misplaced Pages that could be shared by a number of experts who each have limited time available. (BTW, I'm not a Harvard bio prof.) Gnixon 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and for now I think I'll leave most of the editing to the more passionate editors here -- I'm happy to help upon request, Mandaclair 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these suggestions are really useful, and I hope we can incorporate them. Gnixon 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- the last thing I'd like to reply to, is Gnixon's request for more details about "common misconceptions" about evolution. Here's the short list -- some of these may *seem* targeted for the creationists, but they're really not. Even atheists sometimes misunderstand the true meaning of the word "theory". I also realize that many of these issues are addressed piecemeal throughout the article as it stands, but a "bold rewrite" attempt might want to consolidate them into a single section. I think that would be extremely valuable.

• Evolution is a "theory" that remains to be "proved"
• Survival of the fittest means survival of the best
• Human evolved "from" apes (or, any extant X evolved "from" any extant Y)
• Most of an organism's traits are adaptations for some beneficial function
• Humans/mammals/vertebrates are the "most advanced" organisms -- everything has been "leading up" to us
• Evolution always optimizes organisms and improves them over time
• Evolution is usually a slow, gradual, evenly-paced process
• The historical path that evolution took was obvious and unavoidable, and how things will evolve in the future can be somewhat predicted

Please e-mail me for questions or details. Thanks, Mandaclair 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestions. Two things I'm a bit uncertain of: one is superfecundity - organisms certainly don't always produce more offspring than can possibly survive, and that's certainly not required for selection to take place. All that's required is that you do better than your neighbor, as in any race. And two is the above misconceptions section. I was never a fan of its inclusion before, and I don't want to see it making a prominent return. It hurts the article. Graft 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Graft -- you are right about "doing better than your neighbor", but superfecundity is absolutely, indispensably part of the mechanism of Natural Selection. It is the reason that survival and struggle for existence becomes an issue. Remember Darwin's argument about the elephants: he picked the LEAST fecund animal he could think of, and reasoned that if all elephants ever born survived and reproduced, the earth would be swamped by them. Here:

The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding until ninety years old, bringing forth three pair of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair.

(Darwin. On the Origin of Species. Ist Ed. Ch 3.)

Even though it was shown later that Darwin got the calculations wrong, his point is still true and *fundamental* to natural selection. And this is elephants! Think of the superfecundity of arthropods, marine non-vertebrates, bacteria, fungi, rodents, plants that reproduce by wind-pollination... the fact of Superfecundity is fundamental to life on earth, to Natural Selection, and to Evolution. In "Recapitulation and Conclusion" (Chapter 14) Darwin also calls superfecundity "a ratio of increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life".

Not sure how related this is, but evolutionary biologists have a term called LRS, "Lifetime Reproductive Success", which is an additive function of the probability of surviving to any given age, times the potential number of offspring that could be produced in each unit of time (such as a year), added up over the entire lifetime of the organism. LRS can never reach infinity, because of selection, deleterious mutations, evolutionary trade-offs, etc. It may help to think of superfecundity at the species level rather than at the level of the individual. You can also think of it this way: if organisms were NOT superfecund, and did NOT produce more offspring than could possibly survive, then there would be no struggle for existence. Selection might result in the *increase* of your neighbor who is "doing better" but without superfecundity it won't result in the *extinction* of those that "do worse".

The only reason I suggest the misconceptions section, is because Evolution is probably the most misunderstood science of all, because it is so prominent and conspicuous in the popular, public eye. Thus Evolution is in a unique position of having to deal with public misconception, more than any other science has to. There is a way to compose a section like this that does not appear like it's catering to creationists, but rather, caters to the very real need to educate and adjust what many people erroneously believe the position of Evolutionary Science to be.Mandaclair 19:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mandaclair,

I take your point, and believe me I am sympathetic, but this is not an advocacy site; I don't really see the justification for including what's undoubtedly aimed at countering a specific cultural trend here, no matter what the views of the editors. I know others feel differently here, but I think that we should be true to WP, here, not our selves. Graft 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how education = advocacy... most of the points I raised are not about advocacy at all, as much as they are about misconceptions people have of Evolution as an optimizing, directional, gradual process of increasing complexification where X evolves "into" Y. I don't need to argue this point any further, but it's a fact that most people view Evolution that way (regardless of their personal "advocacies")... and that view of evolution is thoroughly incorrect.Mandaclair 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - as to elephants. This is true and good, but populations frequently do explode and grow in size exponentially, and we can still see the influence of selection in this context - that is, allele frequencies can change as a result of differential fitness (or reproductive ability) in an exploding population. So why would we then say that superfecundity is *indispensible* for selection? Graft 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfecundity is indispensible because 1.) it is a blatantly obvious fact of biology, and the mechanism of Natural Selection is firmly rooted on this and other biological facts (variation, heritability, superfecundity, survivorship) -- and 2.) superfecundity is the primary reason for the "struggle for existence" in the first place. Also, consider gene flow in a world where there is no superfecundity and thus no struggle for existence. If all variants that are born (hatched, germinated, etc.) *could* survive and reproduce, and there is no struggle for existence, it is hard to imagine how allele frequencies are going to change significantly over long periods of time. Sure there are population explosions but eventually, something's got to give, and it "gives" because THERE ARE TOO MANY INDIVIDUALS, MORE THAN CAN POSSIBLY SURVIVE, GIVEN THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES. Selection *means* selection of certain individuals out of a pool of individuals who can't all "make it" because there are too many of them to all "make it". This is what Darwin believed and what he stated explicitly, and should be included on this page, if only for that reason. It is in Darwin's Introduction, and my quick inspection shows (not surprisingly) that his quotation is already included in the Wiki entry about Darwin:

"As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form."

Here is a lovely link I found showing Ernst Mayr's schematic of Natural Selection. Note that Superfecundity is first principle.

www.scepscor.org/outreach/bio2010/workshop-summary-files/supplemental-material/naturalselection.pdf

Mandaclair 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be how Darwin defined selection, but as far as I've ever seen it defined, technically, it entirely in terms of differential reproductive success, and nothing else. That's all that's encoded in the idea of fitness. So, while I agree that superfecundity exists and is a fact of nature, I don't see how it is *necessarily* related to selection. Anyway, this is getting abstruse and maybe out of the scope of this article in general. Graft 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ernst Mayr was arguably the most important Evolutionary Biologist of the 20th century, and his schematic of selection (as in the link I've given) has superfecundity as a first principle of selection. Also: technically, Darwin never spoke of reproductive fitness in The Origin using that word (fitness), although differential reproductive success is certainly implied. Note however that fitness is *not* a "differential" (relational) concept in itself. Finally (and this shouldn't be news to anyone), "Survival of the Fittest", in Darwin's time (and meaning) was not a statement of fitness as we define it now -- in The Origin, he really meant survival of competition and, that word you hate, struggle.Mandaclair 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions=Misunderstandings. We used to have a 'Misunderstandings' section but it was thought by many to be WP:POV to have such a section, so it was removed by consensus, on 22 February. There is a separate article called Misunderstandings about evolution, which survived a vote for deletion in January, but its future is still unclear. User:Silence has referred to the title Misunderstandings as 'unacademic and unneutral'. EdJohnston 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... Well, at least this information is still posted somewhere. Cheers, Mandaclair 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I support implementing the bulleted points made by Mandaclair above. I also think some mentions of the misunderstandings are needed. As a complex and touchy issue, many people have preconceived notions or blatantly wrong information about evolution, which is a big reason why it has encountered so much opposition. --Hojimachong 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up -- I'm going to make a few changes, but none should come as a big surprise. Questions? See archive above.Mandaclair 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Drastic improvement to the intro (also finally corrected the definition to include "time" or "successive generations"). I'd just leave out the last paragraph about history for later. The speciation section could really use the same hand as it is sadly lacking. GetAgrippa 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- will be tackling Speciation next.Mandaclair 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question, Graft: I see by your edit comment that you "hate the word struggle", but I wonder how much bearing your personal hatred of the word has, given the fact that Darwin consistently used the phrase "struggle for existence" throughout The Origin, and this "struggle" is very much viewed as fundamental to Natural Selection. Seems to me that any description of selection ought to be true to Darwin, at least...Mandaclair 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but the sentence doesn't really add anything other than flavor. Since you've already expressed an aversion to the adaptationist tone of the article, I'd think you'd be in favor of trimming such sentences. I'm actually quite pleased with the fact that this article has, in general, managed to avoid the "struggle to survive" cartoon of evolution in its language. Most of the positive selection that goes on does not take the form of a visible struggle - it is totally invisible to any observation and can only be detected via statistics or genetics. I dislike that language because it leads people to expect competition - lions snarling over meat, etc. This both presents a distorted picture of evolution and results in misconceptions (like "there is no selection going on in humans right now", because we can't see it). Also, I'll point out that this article has taken great pains to move past Darwin in its language and in its treatment of ideas. Origin of Species is, after all, almost 150 years old now. Graft 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The undeniable fact that all organisms struggle for survival (think about it for just a moment -- think about all the energy that is required for all the vital processes. It's no cakewalk) -- has nothing to do with adaptation. The adaptationist perspective is not one of "constant competition and struggle", but one of "every trait is an optimized adaptation for the function it currently serves, and evolution is an optimizing process". Also, even though the Origin of Species was only written about 150 years ago... the principles go back at least 3 and a half billion years. ;-)Mandaclair 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another short note: I find it patently odd that Graft is so opposed to the inclusion of principles that have always been integral to the mechanism of natural selection: namely superfecundity and struggle for existence. I am not aware of any academic reference from a working evolutionary author, alive or dead, that purports to give a complete explanation of natural selection without citing superfecundity and struggle. I think the concept that may be slipping through the cracks here is: natural *selection*, like artificial *selection*, means perpetuation of a *select subset* of the individuals from the previous generation. This *selection* occurs because they cannot all survive. There are too many of them (superfecundity), and life is tough (struggle). This is why it is *selection*. Darwin began his argument for natural selection by thinking and talking about artificial selection. Dachschunds are long and squat because only the long and squat individuals were *selected* for breeding in that lineage, despite the existence of plenty of puppies that weren't long and squat enough. Those other puppies did not become part of the Dachschund lineage. Out of all the bizarre Cambrian animals we find in the Burgess Shale, only a few types were *selected for* and became the modern animal phyla. The rest didn't make it. Superfecundity and struggle. They are part of the process and always have been.Mandaclair 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My point about Darwin being 150 years old is that our understanding of these issues has certainly evolved since his time. Case in point, selection. You suggest that *selection* means a select subset of individuals from the previous generation are perpetuated, but this is wrong. *Selection* acts on traits, and more properly acts on allele frequencies. It is an allele that is being *selected* for, and the change in frequency of an allele as a result of differential reproductivity is all that is meant by selection. As I've said before (and which I've yet to see a reply to), superfecundity has nothing to do with this idea. Unless I'm missing something, which it's perfectly possible I am.

At this point it seems to me we're talking about very different things - you're talking about species selection and I'm talking about selection within a species. How to resolve this, I'm not sure, other than to outline both of these ideas.Graft 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Selection acts on whole organisms -- not genes, not traits. Yes, traits and genes can be selected FOR or AGAINST, and yes it's all about changing allele frequencies over time, but all of this happens only through the vehicle of the organisms that live, reproduce (or not), and die. There is no other way. Even the "selfish gene" needs the organism to be the phenotypic vessel exposed to natural selection. I will agree that citing the Cambrian was a poor example for me to give, since that is more about interspecific competition, but it was the first thing that came to mind. The principles are clearly applied to the "within a species" level, but I really can't spend any more time trying to justify the rock-solid-established fact that superfecundity and struggle for existence are integral elements of selection, both within a species and for life on Earth in general. The artifical selection example I gave for Dachshunds is perfectly analogous to selection within a species. I am sorry if you don't "see" this point, but you don't have to go 150 years back to Darwin to learn about it. Try looking to Mayr -- he only died a few years ago. I often rode the elevator with him in the Museum of Comparative Zoology... You should have seen him wearing pipe-cleaner ant antennae in the audience on the day of Ed Wilson's last lecture before he went Emeritus...Mandaclair 05:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to address me in the third person - I can follow along just fine. Graft 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. But since this is the public talk page and not your user page, I figured other folks would be involved in this discussion. My apologies,Mandaclair 05:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Struggle to survive

I agree with Graft on the issue of "struggle for survival" - it's a metaphor from an earlier age, and it's about as dated as "nature red in tooth and claw". No one talks about species interactions in those terms any more. Guettarda 05:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I am modern enough to agree with this point of view as well, but only to a certain point. I will be the last person hopping up to paint a picture of "nature red in tooth and claw" and I certainly do not think that "struggle for survival" needs to be *emphasized* greatly when talking about evolution. But it is an *inseparable part* of selection, and of evolution -- not a mere metaphor. That is all I'm saying -- that I can't see justification for leaving it out, but I am 100% on the same page with you that evolution shouldn't be emphasized as some vicious competitive battle out there... although frankly, it really is. This may be hard for humans in industrialized nations to perceive, but do not doubt for a minute that competition for resources among humans worldwide is deadly and fierce. Do not doubt for a minute that organisms by the millions die in floods, droughts, and frosts, that they are consumed by herbivores and predators, that they are driven from their habitats by invasive species, and that they starve to death when a more efficient predator or forager comes along. This shouldn't be emphasized as the central theme of evolution, but it's sheer insanity to deny that it's true.Mandaclair 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the effect of inter- and intra-specific species interactions should be left out, just that calling it a "struggle for survival" is too Victorian, too Marxist, too anthropomorphic a presentation. It also points people in the wrong direction - to think about drastic and dramatic floods, rather than far more mundane features like being shaded out by another individual or killed by a pathogen. Big events don't structure populations nearly as much as do a whole lot of small ones. Guettarda 06:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I think pathogens are pretty dramatic too... I may have listed some big dramatic struggles above to make a point, but there are large struggles and small struggles -- even being "shaded out" by another... the main point being that life is never a walk in the park, and there is no free lunch. That's all, and I certainly do agree that we should steer clear of anthropomorphism...but what is another way to word this central concept, other than using the traditional wording "struggle for survival"? Like I said, it doesn't need to be emphasized (at all, and I have never argued for emphasizing it), but it is a key element that I just can't see any reason to justify its exclusion. Any alternative wordings you want to suggest?Mandaclair 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an old metaphor and the naive also equate it with the survival of the fittest metaphor, but the point I think Mandaclair is making is that biotic competition is a fact of life and superfecundity relates as organisms tend to reproduce more than can survive in any given ecological setting. The terminology maybe a contention but the point does need to be made. I think we would be remiss not to mention both as this is an encyclopedia and the audience needs the basics. Introductory text and books (Gould, Mayr, etc)all mention it to my recollection.GetAgrippa 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am only arguing for its inclusion for the sake of accuracy and completeness. It is not our fault if readers want to misconstrue this as an "only the swift and the strong shall survive" statement. But just because the concept of a "struggle for existence" may be out of fashion, does not make it untrue.Mandaclair 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I simply don't find this apt in many instances. For instance, let's take skin color. There's strong selective pressures to maintain the right amount of melanin, but they're entirely about reproductive success and nothing else - there's no competition for resources involved, and there's no struggle against other members of the same or any other species. I don't think struggle is an appropriate metaphor for evolution *in general*, and the language above doesn't make me any more inclined to believe it's a useful way of phrasing things. Graft 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Graft, "struggle for existence", or whatever you'd like to term the fact that "life is not easy and requires a great investment of energy", is a first-principle because of superfecundity: more offspring are produced than can survive in a world with limited resources. It is as simple as that, the concept has always been central to Selection and Evolution (and Ecology: please recall K, carrying capacity) -- and I personally am tiring of this argument. Achieving any kind of reproductive success always implies struggle, in terms of energy expenditure, acquiring resources, access to mates (in sexual organisms), and biological investment in reproduction. Whether the trait you're looking at is skin color or anything else: if selection favored it, it necessarily implies that individuals carrying the trait were selected FOR and those that didn't carry it were selected AGAINST, and not because life is a bowl of cherries available for the taking. Whether or not you like the word struggle or the concept of struggle: maximizing your fitness IS AN UPHILL BATTLE, and individuals that are better at it persist, while others will not. It doesn't require invoking hand-to-hand combat, tribal wars, and "quarreling over the kill" as being connected to every single trait. Can we please table this topic until we hear a few more views, and until someone bothers to review the primary modern literature that describes Natural Selection. And may I please remind you: nobody is suggesting including anything in this article about "struggle", other than mentioning it briefly as one of the first principles of natural selection. Thanks Mandaclair 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite Heredity =

I kind of feel like the short "Variation" and "Heredity" sections don't belong here (mainly because the way they are written does not really address Evolution). What do folks think about deleting these sections -- keeping in mind that there will be embedded links to the variation and heredity articles, throughout this one?Mandaclair 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with a rewrite of Variation and Heredity, but variation (mutations and recombinations)and heritable need to be explained just like superfecundity should be mentioned. It doesn't have to have a separate section. I tend to agree with your analysis of adaptation, but that is a POV issue (I can see the Gouldian influence in your education)as many authors emphasize adaptation. I do agree that exaptations should be mentioned. I am curious how evolution is taught nowadays (it has been over twenty years since I taught an introductory biology course and molecular biology and genomics has drastically altered the state of affairs).GetAgrippa 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's how evolution is (mostly) taught today: phylogeny, phylogeny, phylogeny! Students get the fundamentals and the history of the field... but then a lot about evolutionary genomics, evo-devo, gene & genome duplications, etc. As you might expect...Mandaclair 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now made some bold(ish) edits to the Selection and Adaptation section, a bit more consistent with the way these concepts are taught in Evolution courses for biology majors. The previous version of this section was really a bit off... for example, the 3rd mode of selection is disruptive selection (not artificial selection), and all 3 modes could be argued to select against harmful traits and select for beneficial ones. I also tried to improve the description of sexual selection a bit, and removed the distinction of "ecological selection" because it seemed a bit redundant with the existing description of natural selection in general. "Ecological selection" is not a term I hear used a lot... it makes sense, sure, but I don't think it's any kind of standard category of selection... As I go through this article, though, I am generally very impressed with its quality. My intention here is just to tidy-up, not do any drastic rewrites! Thanks, Mandaclair 05:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with you on ecological selection. I'd say it has a lot of use in the last 5 years. I'd say it's at the very least presented as a distinct type of selection - e.g., , p.127. Guettarda 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Patrick, and in fact worked with people in the Shaw lab for many years. In that paper, I think the term "ecological selection" is used mainly as a convenience (in context) to distinguish it from sexual selection in the argument they are making. That's just my opinion, but I do have to say that, although the term "ecological selection" certainly makes sense, I don't hear it used often as *its own term* (most people just say natural selection and sexual selection, or talk about the 3 modes). I do note, as you say, a lot more recent usage of this term... My only objection was the prior categorization scheme in the article, which divided selection first into "ecological" and "sexual", and then later into "directional", "stabilizing", and "artificial"... the divisions were somewhat confusing. But if more people here think ecological selection belongs in the article in some way, I say put it back, as long as it is implemented in a way different from that previous categorization. In my opinion "ecological selection" is not in such common use that it warrants status as a category of selection in this article... (e.g. ecological selection, in quotes, gets about 20,000 google hits, while sexual selection in quotes gets over 900,000... not really terms or categories in equal usage) Thanks, Mandaclair 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Struggle -- proposed solution: In an attempt to dress up an old concept in less Victorian/anthropomorphic language, I have gone ahead and replaced the classic "struggle for existence" phrase with some roundabout verbage that, to my mind, means exactly the same thing: "organisms in a population are not all equally successful in terms of survivorship and reproductive success". Conceptually, it is identical to "struggle for existence" -- does this wording satisfy the dissenters?Mandaclair 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, Graft -- I dig, Mandaclair 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Evolutionary biology articles
• Unknown-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists