Talk:Evolution: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:01, 1 March 2015 editDonaldKronos (talk \| contribs)220 edits →Clarification & Encouragement: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:08, 1 March 2015 edit undoApokryltaros (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,950 editsm Reverted 1 edit by DonaldKronos (talk) to last revision by GetAgrippa. (TW)Next edit →
Line 280:		Line 280:
	Here is an excellent video of the Stickleback Supermodel of evolution.I highly recommend it. Great example of how evolution works in novel ways too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Ca-f4W9Q		Here is an excellent video of the Stickleback Supermodel of evolution.I highly recommend it. Great example of how evolution works in novel ways too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Ca-f4W9Q
	Regards ] (]) 04:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)		Regards ] (]) 04:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

	== Clarification & Encouragement ==

	Please, avoid replying to me here, or further censoring me. I request that you ignore me, or hear me out, at your discretion, and then attempt to leave me out of it. If you have something constructive to add, please add it, but preferably not as a reply to me, as I am attempting to back away from the conversation honorably, and allow it to evolve without me.

	My intention in creating this section is to make what I hope to be a final clarification on my part and encourage those who see room for improvement to help guide the future evolution of the ] page, and it's associated ] page.

	I would like to thank those who have been patient with me trying to make a point which it appears I have failed to find the ability to communicate clearly. To those who have been patient, I thank you very much.

	I have not been trying to say that the entire article is flawed, or anything like that. Many improvements have been made, but my main concern all along with the ] page, and it's associated ] page is that many people who come looking for confirmation of a flawed assumption about evolution may have that assumption validated by a narrow definition of '''biological evolution''' being passed off as a definition of '''evolution''' without clarification regarding the scope of that definition.

	Not the ] article as a whole, but the definition at the top of it, states currently that: '''Evolution''', also known as '''descent with modification''', is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations. -- If consensus is to leave it that way, then so be it, but my my point is that many people may come to the ] page to see whether it confirms or denies that such things as wiki pages and societal behavior can evolve, and read only that definition before closing the page. A simple clarification of '''", within the context og biology, "''' would encourage further reading, rather than confirmation bias.

	Likewise the ] page may be looked at by those curious enough to check for disambiguation, to see if perhaps people who say that things like web pages, computer languages, and alphabets, accumulating changes over time, qualifies as ], only to find the definition currently at the top stating: '''Evolution''' is the change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations due to natural selection and other mechanisms.

	Again, many people may see a definition like that, confirm their preconception that only biology is claimed to evolve by any '''authority''', which is what many view Misplaced Pages as, and then leave the page without reading further.

	If the intention is to inform, rather than merely confirm preconceptions, I highly recommend that this supposedly closed issue be considered not so closed after all. Just, please, leave me out of it for now. I have no intention of irritating people here who think this subject should be dropped. I'm merely trying to avoid other people who feel as I do, having to feel that they need to keep quiet about their concerns as well.

	Please allow people to discuss and explore possible improvements, if they wish to do so. Better yet, assume good faith, and encourage such discussion. Perhaps it will not happen anyway, but just maybe it will turn out to have been as important as it seems to me.

	] (]) 00:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:08, 1 March 2015

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Vital article

The categories listed below refer to WikiProjects which have expressed an interest in this article.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions are rephrased objections to evolution that users have argued should be included in the text of Evolution. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists.
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Misplaced Pages policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to evolution, to be interjected into a science article like Evolution.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article? A1: This is essentially mandated by Misplaced Pages's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Misplaced Pages should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Misplaced Pages should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth.

Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Misplaced Pages's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Misplaced Pages cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Rejection of evolution by religious groups give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not.

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Undue weight Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy? A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID. In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.

Thus, as a consequence of Misplaced Pages's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Misplaced Pages's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones.

Further information: Teach the Controversy and Level of support for evolution Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory? A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact.

Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well supported it is.

When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Further information: Evolution as fact and theory Q4: But isn't evolution unproven? A4: Once again, this depends on how one is defining the terms proof and proven. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to an argument or demonstration showing that a proposition is completely certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to the establishment and accumulation of experimental evidence to a degree at which it lends overwhelming support to a proposition. Therefore, a proven proposition in the mathematical sense is one which is formally known to be true, while a proven proposition in the more general sense is one which is widely held to be true because the evidence strongly indicates that this is so ("beyond all reasonable doubt", in legal language).

In the first sense, the whole of evolutionary theory is not proven with absolute certainty, but there are mathematical proofs in evolutionary theory. However, nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on a finite set of facts that have been studied relative to the unproven assumptions of things stirring in the infinite complexity of the world around us. Evolutionary science pushes the threshold of discovery into the unknown. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Absolute proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence, but rather on definition.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Main article: Evidence of evolution Q5: Has evolution ever been observed? A5: Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales. However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies. A famous experiment was developed in 1992 that traced bacterial evolution with precision in a lab. This experiment has subsequently been used to test the accuracy and robustness of methods used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of other organisms with great success. Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas, in the Italian Wall Lizard, and in Darwin's finches.

Scientists have observed significant changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution. So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Main article: Evidence of evolution Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution? A6: The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different timescales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much.

A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

Further information: Microevolution and Macroevolution Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution? A7: To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution:

There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough.
There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Furthermore, technically all fossils are transitional fossils, because no species is fixed and unchanging. For example, you can argue that Homo erectus is a transitional fossil between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis. But in the same line of thought, you can say Homo habilis is a transitional fossil between A. afarensis and Homo erectus, and so on.
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium".
Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life.
Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.
Both the vertebrate eye and the bacterial flagellum are well understood to have evolved from simpler structures. Indeed, simpler eye-like structures (such as the sea squirt's ocellus) can still be found in existing species. Complex biological traits can also evolve as exaptations, where ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new functions. "Irreducible complexity" is, in any case, neither a scientific concept nor a coherent argument: A less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.
Evolution can't create new information.
New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935.

With regard to the Misplaced Pages Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Misplaced Pages knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Misplaced Pages's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue. Q8: How could life arise by chance? A8: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life any more than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties—the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true. See also

Past discussions

For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Evolution:

The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that evolution is controversial.

The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section.

Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

There is scientific evidence against evolution.

References

See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.
^ The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.
DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.
Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.
Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.
Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.
Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.
Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.
Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?
Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976
Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.
Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.
Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.
"Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

Evolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

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
May 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

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

Template:WikiProject Genetics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Evolutionary biology 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History of Science Top‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biology Top‑importance

	Biology portal Evolution 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Creationism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Susan Kruglinski (2006-07-02). "Map: Evolution Evolving". Discover (magazine).
Michael Booth (2007-04-30). "Grading Misplaced Pages". Denver Post.

WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ above, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are interested in discussing or debating over evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins or elsewhere.

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "good," even if "stylistic infelicities abound."; "a fine introduction"; "source list appropriate, and well-rounded." Please examine the findings.(Note - this review prompted the drive to bring the article back to FA.)
For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Index 2003–2005

Historical POV forks

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 21–February 8

February 8–February 18

September 22–November 18

November 18–January 16, 2008

2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Regarding recent changes

These edits have been reverted by multiple users because "This article is specific to evolution in biology", and the edit "appears contentious".

This article's content is about biological evolution, and (per WP:LEDE) the intro summarizes the article. The removed content discussed a number of uses of the word "evolution" that had nothing to do with biology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that page is about "biologcal evolution" and the biological evolution page REDIRECTS there! Why? That makes NO SENSE! The page is named "evolution". Not "biological evolution". Where should "evolution" be described, if the "evolution" page is to be RESERVED FOR "biological evolution" while the "biological evolution" page is left blank except for a redirect to the "evolution" page? In my opinion, that is HIDING WHAT EVOLUTION IS from the public. Is that what Misplaced Pages is for? To deceive the public? DonaldKronos (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the scholarly and technical definition of the word evolution, evolution IS just biological evolution. Only colloquially does it refer to other forms of change. And since this is an encyclopedia, there is a natural preference for using terms in a scholarly/technical way, hence the evolution article is about biological evolution only. Other encyclopedias do it the exact same way.01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually the word predates Darwin's use of it." So what we find is that word evolution originated from Latin word evolutio, which means unrolling, something like unrolling of the scroll, and the word existed a couple of centuries before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. He infact did not even use the word evolution in his book until the last line which was: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwin in fact disliked the word "evolution" and it was his peers that made it popular. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "evolution IS just biological evolution" -- Response: Bull SH*T! BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is "just biological evolution". EVOLUTION is not! What religion told you that silly lie? I'm really SICK AND TIRED OF THE CENSORSHIP IN HERE! I have noticed that the article is written as if it were meant to discredit evolution, rather than to explain it. Now, should I continue trying to assume good intentions? DonaldKronos (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My scientific education told me that. My love of words that is so extensive that I read the dictionary told me that. Other encyclopedias tell me that. Other scientific experts tell me that. And I find it strange that you think this article is written to discredit evolution. Most of the time, we get people claiming its too pro-evolution.

Now please, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Its a rule, not a recommendation. (which is exactly why you should continue trying to assume good intentions) I highly recommend abiding by it. Failure to do so generally leads to getting your account and perhaps even your IP address blocked.Farsight001 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Evolution, in this context, refers to biological evolution, not all possible applications of the term. Your posts continue to be insulting and rude, while ignoring all feedback you receive. Zarcusian (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reported DonaldKronos for edit warring. I'd've been more willing to look the other way if he hadn't been completely hostile to everyone he's interacted with. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ian.thomson. Sorry what I was doing came off as "edit warring". That was not my intention. I simply had no idea how to contact people in here... nor at first even how to find this talk page (nor did I think to look for it at first). I'm not entirely unfamiliar with editing in Misplaced Pages, but unfortunately I had in the past had similar experiences and could not find anyone to tell me what I most needed to know.... how to reply to people. Needless to say, the frustration was overwhelming. Please accept my apology.

Sorry Zarcusian. I was banned, and unable to reply, before I was able to figure out (thanks to some helpful people) how to actually post a reply. It's not as intuitive before learning it as it seems AFTER learning it. LOL!.

I had not meant to call you a vandal. I over-reacted due mainly to previous bad experiences in Misplaced Pages. How biological evolution fits into the broader concept of evolution is not only relevant to biological evolution but essential for some people to be able to understand that evolution is a real process that actually happens and no some much more restricted thing they have been told to believe it is.

Even within the context of biological evolution the statement "Evolution is the change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations", is not entirely a true statement. That does describe what is generally meant in that context, but it certainly is not descriptive of evolution in a broader sense, and the I would think the evolution page, if it is going to be about only one facet or one category of evolution, should at least put it into the context of evolution in the broader sense, from the start.

While there is a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the evolution page, its disambiguation page starts out with "Evolution is the change in traits of biological organisms over time due to natural selection and other mechanisms", which again is not a true statement, outside of a very specific context.

Anyway, progress has been made in my absence, and after this latest experience I would rather avoid editing pages in Misplaced Pages when not specifically asked to, except for perhaps occasional minor edits. Perhaps in time that will change, but right now I'm still recovering from the trauma. Thanks for doing what you felt was right, and again I apologize for my wording in describing what it looked like to me at the time.

DonaldKronos (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the history of this article. You aren't making any arguments that haven't been thoroughly vetted over the years. You keep saying the article is not fully descriptive of "evolution" but then don't say what "you think" it is and should say-so you aren't making an argument just a complaint. The intro, suppose to be general, covers descent with modification and a basic definition (which the wording has changed to and fro back and forth-but still the same intent of heritable traits changing with successive generations-which is common to all encyclopedic articles and most intro biology text books. It isn't suppose to be evolution by Futyama or Jablonka or Dobzhansky, etc. I've always thought the article should emphasize the modern synthesis more so that Darwin but the body addresses it. The article has been edited by a number of "card carrying" evolutionary biologist yet those changes haven't lasted untouched. The article has a difficult time staying stable because everyone who reads the article finds fault and want to change-as I did years ago. I guess it is human nature. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for Improved Accuracy

Protracted WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm suggesting the following change, simply for the sake of improving the accuracy of the page's opening statement. Where is now says... Evolution is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations. I suggest it be changed to say... In the context of biology, evolution is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations. My reasoning is that even though it is stated that this page is about evolution in biology many people coming to the page will have found it by searching for evolution and will read that opening statement without having read the italicized qualifier above it. Discussion? DonaldKronos (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Pretty much no. The overwhelming majority of readers who type in evolution expect to end up here, and those few who don't have the hatnote to steer them where they want to go. I'm hardly convinced that there are enough readers left to justify your proposed edit, which is clumsy. Basically, I think your overestimating any possible inconvenience that may occur. Also, we are not a dictionary. Our articles are about concepts, not about words. Or at least that is the plan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC) DonaldKronos, you've already made this suggestion. And it's already been explained to you, repeatedly, that this article is about biological evolution, only, and that all other definitions of the word "evolution" are mentioned and discussed in the disambiguation page.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Apokryltaros AKA Mr Fink I think you missed my point. I know the evolution article is about biological evolution but it is still a false claim to say that Evolution is all about biological change, and misleading anyone is an unethical and counterproductive thing to do. The change I am recommending would not detract from the subject of biological evolution in any way, and would in fact give additional information about that subject. Thanks for your feedback DonaldKronos (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Dominus Vobisdu If you feel that my rewording is clumsy, feel free to suggest a more elegant way of making the line more accurate and more considerate of those people who look up evolution expecting to find simple information about evolution such as whether it is a broad topic or a narrow one. As it stands right now, the disambiguation page has a simularly misleading line even closer to the very start of the page, so if someone is in a hurry they could easily end up drawing the quick conclusion that Misplaced Pages portrays the subject of evolution as restricted to the field of biology. Here's an alternative, perhaps less clumsy version to consider... --- In biology, evolution is the change in heritable phenotype traits of populations over successive generations. --- Again, if you have a better suggestion, please feel free to toss it out there, or try making your less clumsy improvement and see whether it gets left that way. I'm just trying to help. Thanks for the feedback. DonaldKronos (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I honestly don't think that any such improvement is needed, and have already explained why I don't. I think you're worrying about something that is, at worst, at very tiny problem. There are much bigger fish to fry. This is only a guppy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Here's a link to an article in Nature which supports the point I am trying to make... http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080 To fully understand biological evolution, it is necessary to understand evolution. DonaldKronos (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Well Kronos technically does have a valid point as I mentioned above. Actually the word evolution predates Darwin's use of it." So what we find is that word evolution originated from Latin word evolutio, which means unrolling, something like unrolling of the scroll, and the word existed a couple of centuries before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. He infact did not even use the word evolution in his book until the last line which was: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwin in fact disliked the word "evolution" and it was his peers that made it popular. RegardsGetAgrippa (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Darwin is only a part of the history of evolutionary theory and not really central to modern terminology. ldvhl (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC) A small point. The article that Donald linked does not only show his point. It shows the opposite point as well. But I think donald either did not read that, or donald ignored it. Either way wikipedia is not here to settle disputes. We wait for what the scientist says. Until then nothing will change. And even then I think WP:Commonname would still be in effect even then. Which is when people think about evolution its about biological evolution and not something else.NathanWubs (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC) No, NathanWubs, I didn't ignore the fact that evolution comes in both biological and non-biologival types. Just as "rectangle" comes in both "square" and "non-square"types. To define "evolution" as "non-biological evolution" is no different than to define "rectangle" as "non-square rectangle", or "animal" as meaning "non-human animal". Any of those would simply be special_pleading Likewise, to define "evolution" as "biological evolution" is no different than to define "rectangle" as "square rectangle", or "animal" as meaning "human animal". Just because one type of something is the most well known types, does not mean that all other types should be discluded from the definition. DonaldKronos (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I wasn't arguing to add his additions. Just pointing out how the word gained popularity with Darwin's theory of natural selection. This is an encyclopedia and the disambiguation deals with it. Most people going to an encyclopedic article on "Evolution" will be looking for an article like this. The article he points isn't a new posit-it's been entertained before mentioning Lamb, Jablonka, etc and epigenetic notions of evolution. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I think that we should add some sort of clarification to the lead sentence. Adding "In biology," to the beginning is not a bad idea. After all, modern terminology evolves and we have started to use evolution to describe other things outside of the biology field as well. For example, we may talk about the evolution of technology, or the evolution of the English language. Other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, have some sort of clarification, too. Thanks, Tony Tan · talk 02:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Per WP:NOTDICT and other guidelines, this article is about the subject, not about the word which refers to the subject. We disambiguate via disambiguation pages, and hatnotes that lead to those pages, not generally by changing our article to reflect usage of a word in other contexts. Britanica may handle this differently than we do, but that's how we do it. I'm not sure adding extra words to the lead sentence helps make this subject easier to understand. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) It is an improper treatment of the subject of biological evolution to treat it, as this article does, as if it is not a subset of the subject of evolution but rather is the embodiment of that much larger subject.... which to my knowledge still has no page on Misplaced Pages to represent it, since the evolution page is NOT about evolution but rather about biological evolution specifically. DonaldKronos (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) There is no policy reason not to put disambiguating explanations into a lead. If such a thing helps relieve valid concerns and end a silly discussion, it should be done IMHO. Not saying it needs to be done, just saying that there is no policy reason not to do it. This article is indeed about biological evolution, but indeed the word as used has more general meanings. Both things are true, and we should not need debates about either. Explaining that the more general meaning might potentially also help explain biological evolution, and explaining is the ultimate aim above all other aims here. That is how we should be discussing. Would it help avoid misunderstandings or not? I do not understand why such disambiguation issues cause such strange discussions on Misplaced Pages, but I do not believe there is any real policy which is telling us we may not do anything like disambiguating within lead texts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) That's exactly what I was thinking Andrew Lancaster, but unfortunately certain people seem to be highly against simply clarifying such a thing so directly. So, I have attempted a compromise. Please have a look at it. Instead of placing the clarification in the opening statement, I placed it in the text telling where to find the disambiguation page. Hopefully this solution will be acceptable. DonaldKronos (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I also added context clarification to the definition on the disambiguation page, in order to make the definition an honest one. DonaldKronos (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I see no policy reason that we can not say "in biology" in an opening line. I can not really understand why people are so opposed to it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) It appears that there is a continuing campaign to solve a non-problem. In this case the "solution" in effect adds redundancy, and disambiguation has already been well addressed. Again, the hatnote clearly states up front "This article is about evolution in biology" and "For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation)". The disambiguation page itself clearly lists biological and non-biological uses of the term. This is in no way a case of "improved accuracy", nor is it a case of "honesty", "dishonesty", or any other inappropriate label that implies some sort of untoward behaviour, plot, or lack of understanding. This has been discussed at length; discussion earlier on was considered incivil, tendentious, and disruptive, resulting in being temporarily blocked; and repeated attempts to proceed with changes have not gained support. TheProfessor (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC) No TheProfessor, it is not redundant to point out that a definition passed off as one thing represents something else. What I do not understand is why it's okay to specify that evolution only applies to biological organisms, which is a FALSE STATEMENT, but somehow NOT okay to point out that such a definition is not a definition of evolution but rather a definition of biological evolution. Both here and on the disambiguation page, dishonesty prevails. DonaldKronos (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC) There is no problem to resolve, we ought to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Good grief the whole idea of a disambiguation is to address your concern. Like "Light" can refer to "light" part of electromagnetic spectrum, Light-a common name or place, reference to calories, reference to weight.. Type in "light" and you get the physics electromagnetic/photon description of "light", but it isn't deceptive nor negate the other applications of the word. If you go to another encyclopedia it will default to physics or list all the applications-a disambiguation page. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I think User:TheProfessor's post above is bullying and disruptive, and not on topic. I see no clear policy reason why this proposal can not be made, and certainly no reason to be threatening editors with being blocked from editing? If there is something policy-wise wrong with the proposal let's just say it clearly, without referring to policies which do not exist. If it is just a personal preference, that is also valid and just say so. The proposal itself has a clear and simple logic and is not horrifying in anyway I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Andrew Lancaster Thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC) GetAgrippa Exactly. The disambiguation page for light starts out by saying Light is an electromagnetic radiation, part of which stimulates the sense of vision. Even though the main light page is about visible light and not about light in general, there is no attempt made in the definition to deny that non-visible light exists or is considered to be light. It is HONEST, unlike the evolution page and it's disambiguation page insisting at the start that evolution is strictly a biological event. DonaldKronos (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC) So, therefore, that makes it an evil, terrible, horrible, no-good, evil conspiracy of a catastrophe in which billions will die? I mean, you are aware that your concerns have already been addressed a long time ago in the disambiguation page, and that your dire portents and dyphemisms grate away at other editors' patience with you, right?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Biological evolution, and the different forms of non-biological evolution are all unrelated concepts that merely share the same name. There is no overarching platonic ideal of Evolution of which biological evolution and the various non-biological evolutions are subsets thereof (and I say this as someone influenced by Teilhard de Chardin). Evolution, when unspecified and given no other context, usually refers to biological evolution, and so that can be considered the default. To treat the different kinds of evolutions as part of the same overall process is to completely confuse the matter to the point of imitating the YEC stereotype of "evolutionism" (again, I'm saying this as someone who was influenced by a theologian who considered various kinds of evolution to be the universe being redeemed by God). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Evolution, biological or otherwise, is the process of accumulating or rolling out change. It has been since the inception of the concept and the terminology to describe it. Claims that biological evolution and non-biological evolution share nothing more than a name in common are misguided at best. As for the straw-man argument that I'm supposedly claiming some "evil, terrible, horrible, no-good, evil conspiracy of a catastrophe in which billions will die", it's certainly nothing I have said or implied. Yes, I am aware that many times this issue has been addressed, and then reverted back to being dishonest. Evolution is not "the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations." That's one narrow facet of evolution, and nothing more. It should not be passed off as a definition of evolution. Evolution is also not " the change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations due to natural selection and other mechanisms." Again, that is nothing more than a narrow facet of evolution, and should not be passed off as a definition of evolution when it would be very easy to label what is being defined honestly instead. 01:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldKronos (talk • contribs) Your continued use of the term "honest" to refer to your preferred (and regularly unsourced) definition implies dishonesty on the part of those who disagree with you -- an utter failure of WP:AGF, if not a preemptive attack on those who do not agree with you. The accumulation of changes is the definition for the word evolution, it is not some cosmic concept for which different types of changes are subsets of. That is, Software evolution, Grammatical evolution, Spiritual evolution, Sociocultural evolution, and biological evolution are fairly distinct concepts that concern completely different things changing in completely different ways for completely different reasons over time. They are not all bound together and guided by some God of evolution, they are distinct types of unrelated chaos. About the only way they begin to relate is that some of their changes would occur in parallel as a result of their environments changing (particularly grammatical and sociocultural evolutions). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC) DonaldKronos, I wasn't making a strawman, I was being facetious in an obviously vain attempt to clue you in that everyone is tired of your tediously protracted sanctimony where you wail and rail about being the only honest editor while attacking everyone who won't kowtow to your proposals as being evil and dishonest conspirators conspiring against you. That, and as Ian eloquently pointed out, the different "varieties" of Evolution are totally unrelated phenomena, and that the changes you want done have already been done on the disambiguation page, and that, most importantly, you have yet to present a convincing argument to turn this page into an overarching discussion of all forms of evolution, and shuttle the contents of this page into a separate page.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Unsourced? No. Source references were deleted, like nearly everything else that point to the fact that evolution is not restricted to biology, and there is a distinction between the process of evolution in general and the much more narrow and more easily obscured subject of the process of biological evolution specifically. I'm not the one trying to hide anything here. Want a source? How about this one... ] If that's not good enough, let me know. I can find hundreds pretty easily. I'm just tired of even dealing with this. I get attacked constantly in here for simply asking that a definition of biological evolution not be passed off as a definition of evolution without regard to context. DonaldKronos (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Those sources you refer to consisted of interpretation of sources beyond what they say, (original research), to make points not made in any single source (synthesis). You specifically need a source that refers to the different evolutions as being part of some unified evolutionary force. The latest source you provide, if anything, affirms that evolution usually refers to biological evolution, and that many of the non-biological forms are only called evolution because they are imitative parallels, though still distinct processes. "I'm not the one trying to hide anything here" -- NO ONE IS HIDING ANYTHING HERE, so you can either: drop that sanctimonious paranoia and assume good faith -or- leave Please provide evidence that you have been attacked. Editors pointing out that you fail to assume good faith, appear to be confused as to the topic, or not seeing any use in your suggestions are not the same as attacks -- please point out where we have commented on you as a person, not just pointing to actions that we are not pleased with. We're getting pretty tired of you dealing with this too, Donald. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Yeah, it's obvious that honesty is not wanted here. Assume good faith? I've done that. What I've watched happen disagrees with that assumption. Look up the etymology and history of the word evolution. Its broad usage has basically not changed. As for restricting it to biological evolution all I have asked is that if that's going to be done, it should be labeled as such. I even tried labeling it with a single word, so that it would not take up much space, and did nothing more that clarify that the definition given is not a broad definition, but a narrow one which applies specifically to biological evolution. Don't tell me that nothing is being hidden, when I can find no way of presenting this simple fact without it being swiftly deleted. Of course I know not everyone is in on it. Several people have even spoken up agreeing with me, but I can understand why they are so reluctant to do such a thing in this aggressively hostile environment. Where is the assumption of my good faith? Where is the attempt to find an acceptable way to correct what I have pointed out may further deceive people who have already been deceived? Why are people who agree with me generally ignored? I don't see any of the people who attack my position asking such people for advice on how some common ground might be found. Not a very democratic process from what I can see, but I am trying to encourage it to evolve. Perhaps that's too much to ask for, since it's not biological, and those who are causing its stagnation seem convinced that non-biological evolution either does not occur, or is not evolution at all, or is simply not important. DonaldKronos (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I've assumed good faith with you, I just haven't assumed competence, and your regular accusations of censorship and deception show that you are not assuming good faith. Either you are lying when you say you are, or you're just not capable of assuming good faith. The hostility you've experienced is a result of you refusing to assume good faith from anyone who didn't give you what you wanted. If you had come here interested in collaboration, you would not have started off accusing those who reverted you of vandalism, and you would not continue your accusations of deception. If you had come here interested in collaboration, you would have calmly asked editors who reverted you why they reverted, and tried to adjust your plans to fit their explanation or else try to find a broader consensus. It took you a block to pull that off. You didn't do that. Instead, you consistantly threw tantrums and made insulting allegations about others. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC) @DonaldKronos: you clearly do not understand that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. You repeatedly demonstrate that you have no assumption of good faith by doing things like making blatantly false accusations, i.e., by blatantly lying about how people allegedly want this article to "stagnate" because they are magically ignoring non-biological evolution, or by accusing Misplaced Pages of being an evil tyranny because people fail to be swayed by your tedious sanctimony and protracted temper tantrums.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I'm quite willing to let this go and assume good faith, if I can see someone other than myself attempting to discuss this here rather than trying to censor it. Please, anyone who disagrees with me, take the first step positive toward seeing if I might have a point after all. Yes, I am burnt out and having a hard time addressing this in as civilized of a manor as I should, so please... ask for people who agree with me to speak up. Hear them out. Let them talk with each other and attempt to find a solution that those who disagree with me can live with. I know I'm not the only person here who sees a problem with passing off a definition of biological evolution as a definition of evolution and not even noting in that definition "within the context of biology" or anything of the sort. I have watched other people speak up about this on many occasions, for the most part timidly and reluctantly, and quickly shot down as if they had said something wrong. Would some good person please invite them to speak up without feeling threatened? I'm okay with standing back and letting others discuss this. What I'm not okay with is being repeatedly told that I need to assume good faith when I am seeing just the opposite. So.... please? Can I assume good faith and see some evidence that it wasn't an error to do so? DonaldKronos (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Hearing people out is a two-way road, not a one-way road going only to you. If you were interested in heading down that road, you would not have made the straw-man argument that we're trying to present non-biological evolution as not evolving. There are obviously accumulated changes (hence "evolution"), but the mechanisms for them are independent from biological evolution. There just isn't a unified force connecting biological evolution with the non-biological evolutions, they just share a name. And you're still not assuming good faith. If you were, you wouldn't have implied that others are trying to censor the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC) DonaldKronos, Have you tried not accusing other editors of being liars or censorers, or evil conspirators solely because they don't agree with you or have failed to be persuaded by your endless sanctimony, or repeatedly tell you that your concerns have already been addressed a long, long time ago in Evolution (disambiguation)?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Protracted WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm suggesting the following change, simply for the sake of improving the accuracy of the page's opening statement.

Where is now says... Evolution is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations.

I suggest it be changed to say... In the context of biology, evolution is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations.

My reasoning is that even though it is stated that this page is about evolution in biology many people coming to the page will have found it by searching for evolution and will read that opening statement without having read the italicized qualifier above it.

Discussion?

DonaldKronos (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much no. The overwhelming majority of readers who type in evolution expect to end up here, and those few who don't have the hatnote to steer them where they want to go. I'm hardly convinced that there are enough readers left to justify your proposed edit, which is clumsy. Basically, I think your overestimating any possible inconvenience that may occur. Also, we are not a dictionary. Our articles are about concepts, not about words. Or at least that is the plan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

DonaldKronos, you've already made this suggestion. And it's already been explained to you, repeatedly, that this article is about biological evolution, only, and that all other definitions of the word "evolution" are mentioned and discussed in the disambiguation page.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Apokryltaros AKA Mr Fink I think you missed my point. I know the evolution article is about biological evolution but it is still a false claim to say that Evolution is all about biological change, and misleading anyone is an unethical and counterproductive thing to do. The change I am recommending would not detract from the subject of biological evolution in any way, and would in fact give additional information about that subject. Thanks for your feedback DonaldKronos (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu If you feel that my rewording is clumsy, feel free to suggest a more elegant way of making the line more accurate and more considerate of those people who look up evolution expecting to find simple information about evolution such as whether it is a broad topic or a narrow one. As it stands right now, the disambiguation page has a simularly misleading line even closer to the very start of the page, so if someone is in a hurry they could easily end up drawing the quick conclusion that Misplaced Pages portrays the subject of evolution as restricted to the field of biology.

Here's an alternative, perhaps less clumsy version to consider...

--- In biology, evolution is the change in heritable phenotype traits of populations over successive generations. ---

Again, if you have a better suggestion, please feel free to toss it out there, or try making your less clumsy improvement and see whether it gets left that way. I'm just trying to help. Thanks for the feedback.

DonaldKronos (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that any such improvement is needed, and have already explained why I don't. I think you're worrying about something that is, at worst, at very tiny problem. There are much bigger fish to fry. This is only a guppy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article in Nature which supports the point I am trying to make... http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

To fully understand biological evolution, it is necessary to understand evolution.

DonaldKronos (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well Kronos technically does have a valid point as I mentioned above. Actually the word evolution predates Darwin's use of it." So what we find is that word evolution originated from Latin word evolutio, which means unrolling, something like unrolling of the scroll, and the word existed a couple of centuries before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. He infact did not even use the word evolution in his book until the last line which was: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwin in fact disliked the word "evolution" and it was his peers that made it popular. RegardsGetAgrippa (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Darwin is only a part of the history of evolutionary theory and not really central to modern terminology. ldvhl (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A small point. The article that Donald linked does not only show his point. It shows the opposite point as well. But I think donald either did not read that, or donald ignored it. Either way wikipedia is not here to settle disputes. We wait for what the scientist says. Until then nothing will change. And even then I think WP:Commonname would still be in effect even then. Which is when people think about evolution its about biological evolution and not something else.NathanWubs (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, NathanWubs, I didn't ignore the fact that evolution comes in both biological and non-biologival types. Just as "rectangle" comes in both "square" and "non-square"types. To define "evolution" as "non-biological evolution" is no different than to define "rectangle" as "non-square rectangle", or "animal" as meaning "non-human animal". Any of those would simply be special_pleading Likewise, to define "evolution" as "biological evolution" is no different than to define "rectangle" as "square rectangle", or "animal" as meaning "human animal". Just because one type of something is the most well known types, does not mean that all other types should be discluded from the definition. DonaldKronos (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing to add his additions. Just pointing out how the word gained popularity with Darwin's theory of natural selection. This is an encyclopedia and the disambiguation deals with it. Most people going to an encyclopedic article on "Evolution" will be looking for an article like this. The article he points isn't a new posit-it's been entertained before mentioning Lamb, Jablonka, etc and epigenetic notions of evolution. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should add some sort of clarification to the lead sentence. Adding "In biology," to the beginning is not a bad idea. After all, modern terminology evolves and we have started to use evolution to describe other things outside of the biology field as well. For example, we may talk about the evolution of technology, or the evolution of the English language. Other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, have some sort of clarification, too. Thanks, Tony Tan · talk 02:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDICT and other guidelines, this article is about the subject, not about the word which refers to the subject. We disambiguate via disambiguation pages, and hatnotes that lead to those pages, not generally by changing our article to reflect usage of a word in other contexts. Britanica may handle this differently than we do, but that's how we do it. I'm not sure adding extra words to the lead sentence helps make this subject easier to understand. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an improper treatment of the subject of biological evolution to treat it, as this article does, as if it is not a subset of the subject of evolution but rather is the embodiment of that much larger subject.... which to my knowledge still has no page on Misplaced Pages to represent it, since the evolution page is NOT about evolution but rather about biological evolution specifically. DonaldKronos (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy reason not to put disambiguating explanations into a lead. If such a thing helps relieve valid concerns and end a silly discussion, it should be done IMHO. Not saying it needs to be done, just saying that there is no policy reason not to do it. This article is indeed about biological evolution, but indeed the word as used has more general meanings. Both things are true, and we should not need debates about either. Explaining that the more general meaning might potentially also help explain biological evolution, and explaining is the ultimate aim above all other aims here. That is how we should be discussing. Would it help avoid misunderstandings or not? I do not understand why such disambiguation issues cause such strange discussions on Misplaced Pages, but I do not believe there is any real policy which is telling us we may not do anything like disambiguating within lead texts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking Andrew Lancaster, but unfortunately certain people seem to be highly against simply clarifying such a thing so directly. So, I have attempted a compromise. Please have a look at it. Instead of placing the clarification in the opening statement, I placed it in the text telling where to find the disambiguation page. Hopefully this solution will be acceptable. DonaldKronos (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I also added context clarification to the definition on the disambiguation page, in order to make the definition an honest one. DonaldKronos (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no policy reason that we can not say "in biology" in an opening line. I can not really understand why people are so opposed to it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there is a continuing campaign to solve a non-problem. In this case the "solution" in effect adds redundancy, and disambiguation has already been well addressed. Again, the hatnote clearly states up front "This article is about evolution in biology" and "For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation)". The disambiguation page itself clearly lists biological and non-biological uses of the term. This is in no way a case of "improved accuracy", nor is it a case of "honesty", "dishonesty", or any other inappropriate label that implies some sort of untoward behaviour, plot, or lack of understanding. This has been discussed at length; discussion earlier on was considered incivil, tendentious, and disruptive, resulting in being temporarily blocked; and repeated attempts to proceed with changes have not gained support. TheProfessor (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No TheProfessor, it is not redundant to point out that a definition passed off as one thing represents something else. What I do not understand is why it's okay to specify that evolution only applies to biological organisms, which is a FALSE STATEMENT, but somehow NOT okay to point out that such a definition is not a definition of evolution but rather a definition of biological evolution. Both here and on the disambiguation page, dishonesty prevails. DonaldKronos (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem to resolve, we ought to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good grief the whole idea of a disambiguation is to address your concern. Like "Light" can refer to "light" part of electromagnetic spectrum, Light-a common name or place, reference to calories, reference to weight.. Type in "light" and you get the physics electromagnetic/photon description of "light", but it isn't deceptive nor negate the other applications of the word. If you go to another encyclopedia it will default to physics or list all the applications-a disambiguation page. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think User:TheProfessor's post above is bullying and disruptive, and not on topic. I see no clear policy reason why this proposal can not be made, and certainly no reason to be threatening editors with being blocked from editing? If there is something policy-wise wrong with the proposal let's just say it clearly, without referring to policies which do not exist. If it is just a personal preference, that is also valid and just say so. The proposal itself has a clear and simple logic and is not horrifying in anyway I can see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster Thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

GetAgrippa Exactly. The disambiguation page for light starts out by saying Light is an electromagnetic radiation, part of which stimulates the sense of vision. Even though the main light page is about visible light and not about light in general, there is no attempt made in the definition to deny that non-visible light exists or is considered to be light. It is HONEST, unlike the evolution page and it's disambiguation page insisting at the start that evolution is strictly a biological event. DonaldKronos (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So, therefore, that makes it an evil, terrible, horrible, no-good, evil conspiracy of a catastrophe in which billions will die? I mean, you are aware that your concerns have already been addressed a long time ago in the disambiguation page, and that your dire portents and dyphemisms grate away at other editors' patience with you, right?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Biological evolution, and the different forms of non-biological evolution are all unrelated concepts that merely share the same name. There is no overarching platonic ideal of Evolution of which biological evolution and the various non-biological evolutions are subsets thereof (and I say this as someone influenced by Teilhard de Chardin). Evolution, when unspecified and given no other context, usually refers to biological evolution, and so that can be considered the default. To treat the different kinds of evolutions as part of the same overall process is to completely confuse the matter to the point of imitating the YEC stereotype of "evolutionism" (again, I'm saying this as someone who was influenced by a theologian who considered various kinds of evolution to be the universe being redeemed by God). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Evolution, biological or otherwise, is the process of accumulating or rolling out change. It has been since the inception of the concept and the terminology to describe it. Claims that biological evolution and non-biological evolution share nothing more than a name in common are misguided at best. As for the straw-man argument that I'm supposedly claiming some "evil, terrible, horrible, no-good, evil conspiracy of a catastrophe in which billions will die", it's certainly nothing I have said or implied. Yes, I am aware that many times this issue has been addressed, and then reverted back to being dishonest.

Evolution is not "the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations." That's one narrow facet of evolution, and nothing more. It should not be passed off as a definition of evolution. Evolution is also not " the change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations due to natural selection and other mechanisms." Again, that is nothing more than a narrow facet of evolution, and should not be passed off as a definition of evolution when it would be very easy to label what is being defined honestly instead.

01:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldKronos (talk • contribs)

Your continued use of the term "honest" to refer to your preferred (and regularly unsourced) definition implies dishonesty on the part of those who disagree with you -- an utter failure of WP:AGF, if not a preemptive attack on those who do not agree with you.

The accumulation of changes is the definition for the word evolution, it is not some cosmic concept for which different types of changes are subsets of. That is, Software evolution, Grammatical evolution, Spiritual evolution, Sociocultural evolution, and biological evolution are fairly distinct concepts that concern completely different things changing in completely different ways for completely different reasons over time. They are not all bound together and guided by some God of evolution, they are distinct types of unrelated chaos. About the only way they begin to relate is that some of their changes would occur in parallel as a result of their environments changing (particularly grammatical and sociocultural evolutions). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

DonaldKronos, I wasn't making a strawman, I was being facetious in an obviously vain attempt to clue you in that everyone is tired of your tediously protracted sanctimony where you wail and rail about being the only honest editor while attacking everyone who won't kowtow to your proposals as being evil and dishonest conspirators conspiring against you. That, and as Ian eloquently pointed out, the different "varieties" of Evolution are totally unrelated phenomena, and that the changes you want done have already been done on the disambiguation page, and that, most importantly, you have yet to present a convincing argument to turn this page into an overarching discussion of all forms of evolution, and shuttle the contents of this page into a separate page.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced? No. Source references were deleted, like nearly everything else that point to the fact that evolution is not restricted to biology, and there is a distinction between the process of evolution in general and the much more narrow and more easily obscured subject of the process of biological evolution specifically.

I'm not the one trying to hide anything here. Want a source? How about this one... ]

If that's not good enough, let me know. I can find hundreds pretty easily. I'm just tired of even dealing with this. I get attacked constantly in here for simply asking that a definition of biological evolution not be passed off as a definition of evolution without regard to context.

DonaldKronos (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Those sources you refer to consisted of interpretation of sources beyond what they say, (original research), to make points not made in any single source (synthesis). You specifically need a source that refers to the different evolutions as being part of some unified evolutionary force. The latest source you provide, if anything, affirms that evolution usually refers to biological evolution, and that many of the non-biological forms are only called evolution because they are imitative parallels, though still distinct processes.

"I'm not the one trying to hide anything here" -- NO ONE IS HIDING ANYTHING HERE, so you can either:

drop that sanctimonious paranoia and assume good faith

-or-

leave

Please provide evidence that you have been attacked. Editors pointing out that you fail to assume good faith, appear to be confused as to the topic, or not seeing any use in your suggestions are not the same as attacks -- please point out where we have commented on you as a person, not just pointing to actions that we are not pleased with. We're getting pretty tired of you dealing with this too, Donald. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obvious that honesty is not wanted here. Assume good faith? I've done that. What I've watched happen disagrees with that assumption. Look up the etymology and history of the word evolution. Its broad usage has basically not changed. As for restricting it to biological evolution all I have asked is that if that's going to be done, it should be labeled as such.

I even tried labeling it with a single word, so that it would not take up much space, and did nothing more that clarify that the definition given is not a broad definition, but a narrow one which applies specifically to biological evolution. Don't tell me that nothing is being hidden, when I can find no way of presenting this simple fact without it being swiftly deleted.

Of course I know not everyone is in on it. Several people have even spoken up agreeing with me, but I can understand why they are so reluctant to do such a thing in this aggressively hostile environment.

Where is the assumption of my good faith? Where is the attempt to find an acceptable way to correct what I have pointed out may further deceive people who have already been deceived? Why are people who agree with me generally ignored? I don't see any of the people who attack my position asking such people for advice on how some common ground might be found.

Not a very democratic process from what I can see, but I am trying to encourage it to evolve. Perhaps that's too much to ask for, since it's not biological, and those who are causing its stagnation seem convinced that non-biological evolution either does not occur, or is not evolution at all, or is simply not important.

DonaldKronos (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith with you, I just haven't assumed competence, and your regular accusations of censorship and deception show that you are not assuming good faith. Either you are lying when you say you are, or you're just not capable of assuming good faith.

The hostility you've experienced is a result of you refusing to assume good faith from anyone who didn't give you what you wanted. If you had come here interested in collaboration, you would not have started off accusing those who reverted you of vandalism, and you would not continue your accusations of deception. If you had come here interested in collaboration, you would have calmly asked editors who reverted you why they reverted, and tried to adjust your plans to fit their explanation or else try to find a broader consensus. It took you a block to pull that off. You didn't do that. Instead, you consistantly threw tantrums and made insulting allegations about others. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@DonaldKronos: you clearly do not understand that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. You repeatedly demonstrate that you have no assumption of good faith by doing things like making blatantly false accusations, i.e., by blatantly lying about how people allegedly want this article to "stagnate" because they are magically ignoring non-biological evolution, or by accusing Misplaced Pages of being an evil tyranny because people fail to be swayed by your tedious sanctimony and protracted temper tantrums.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to let this go and assume good faith, if I can see someone other than myself attempting to discuss this here rather than trying to censor it. Please, anyone who disagrees with me, take the first step positive toward seeing if I might have a point after all. Yes, I am burnt out and having a hard time addressing this in as civilized of a manor as I should, so please... ask for people who agree with me to speak up. Hear them out. Let them talk with each other and attempt to find a solution that those who disagree with me can live with.

I know I'm not the only person here who sees a problem with passing off a definition of biological evolution as a definition of evolution and not even noting in that definition "within the context of biology" or anything of the sort. I have watched other people speak up about this on many occasions, for the most part timidly and reluctantly, and quickly shot down as if they had said something wrong. Would some good person please invite them to speak up without feeling threatened?

I'm okay with standing back and letting others discuss this. What I'm not okay with is being repeatedly told that I need to assume good faith when I am seeing just the opposite. So.... please? Can I assume good faith and see some evidence that it wasn't an error to do so?

DonaldKronos (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hearing people out is a two-way road, not a one-way road going only to you. If you were interested in heading down that road, you would not have made the straw-man argument that we're trying to present non-biological evolution as not evolving. There are obviously accumulated changes (hence "evolution"), but the mechanisms for them are independent from biological evolution. There just isn't a unified force connecting biological evolution with the non-biological evolutions, they just share a name.

And you're still not assuming good faith. If you were, you wouldn't have implied that others are trying to censor the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

DonaldKronos, Have you tried not accusing other editors of being liars or censorers, or evil conspirators solely because they don't agree with you or have failed to be persuaded by your endless sanctimony, or repeatedly tell you that your concerns have already been addressed a long, long time ago in Evolution (disambiguation)?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

No specific suggestion for article improvement which can be backed up by reliable sources. If sources are found, please start a new section with them listed prominently.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There appears to be False balance in some important articles cf. Supernatural Creation Power. I see a clear writing style in these articles that is very easy to follow. As opposed to Evolution and Big Bang theory which are lacking in Plain English though full of WP:PEA. Which to me infers Imago dei please also cf. Line 2 Truth . Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. --Considering Wormwood 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk • contribs) @Kaptinavenger: Exactly what puffery is in this article? We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. You may find Introduction to evolution easier to understand. --NeilN 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) @Kaptinavenger:, please to provide examples of "puffery" in this and other articles whose talkpages you have spammed with this same message. You know, as a show of good faith, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC) As I mentioned elsewhere... that's because your first list are not technical articles, and so they don't use technical language. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are highly technical articles concerning a complex scientific subject. You may appreciate Simple Misplaced Pages, which was created for this very reason. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Indeed, I shall, Puffery can be seen in first word of the second line 1)"All" certainly can have a more neutral alternative. Not so "Bright" as it were. Perhaps, It could also be all, started with "The common consensus is". 2) The line, I did not help write, "There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories in science." puts the whole subject back into theory, the statement, one of the articles truest, and most neutral, made what the fourth paragraph? cf. Truth line 2. The observation I am making is that "understanding the opposite of a thing can be very useful when understanding the reality of a thing." I.E. the theorized opposite of Evolution, Theistic Creation, is not a notion in this article, though exceedingly discussed scholarly & scientifically, even today. I am not suggesting silence. Just offering some tips on NPOV. I could go on listing puffery here, and terrorism, though I have to go do some work on the Big Bang Theory, and it is already late, Happy Valentines Day ;-) I hope the conversation continues. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Actually, I hope the conversation doesn't continue as you make little sense. --NeilN 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Kaptin, please forgive me for offering advice, but I recommend that you read the Misplaced Pages articles on these subjects that concern you (evolution, big bang, etc.) and try to learn as much as possible from them. Otherwise, you might benefit from taking some formal courses, maybe at a local college. You might find them interesting. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC) I'd also suggest reading WP:NPOV, since you referenced it. "Neutral" does not mean giving all sides equal weight; it means representing significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources from within the scientific community indicating that any of the sentences you've disputed are incorrect? Because we have a great deal of reliable sources indicating they are not. We cannot change the article without sources. — Jess· Δ ♥ 09:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Ad hominem is unnecessary and rude. And as this article clearly uses multiple definitions of the word, evolution, I propose those definitions and their differences be spelled out clearly. Again I am talking about Plain English here, I am no biologists, though my ability to read is highly evolved cf. Truth, I do agree, things change over time, or evolve, not only in biology but in every science, but this article seems to have, that science, confused with the exo nihilism fish to frog leap of faith. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Repeating for your highly evolved reading ability: We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. You may find Introduction to evolution easier to understand. --NeilN 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC) I.E. one kind of Evolutionary Biology, studies the forward progression of biology, as it can be observed in reality. Another kind of Evolutionary Biology, hypothesizes the changes we can see and measure, in the variation of species, is sufficient change to account for the variations in all forms of life. Both, very scientific and technical ideas with expansive areas of study, including but not limited to Paleontology Biology and Physics. I could list a bunch of science journal articles on the debate, but as I am not meaning to change the science of the things, nor the truth of them, simply saying, Misplaced Pages should not give weight to ideas to help prop them up, even if it is hilarious when people believe it cf. Flat Earth. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC) The alleged "opposite" of biological evolution, which you claim is Creationism, has not been studied scientifically for literal centuries when it became blatantly apparent that there literally is no evidence of God going around magically poofing organisms into existence. Furthermore, I repeat my request for you to provide an example of "puffery," and this time, I wish to ask you use "Plain English," as your stilted dialect is very difficult for other editors understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Kapt, I've spelled out how wikipedia operates with respect to neutrality. For more detailed information, you can read WP:WEIGHT. We cannot change the article without referring to sources. Please provide sources, or we can't continue this conversation. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC) @Fink: Well. I disagree. You seem to have God and nothing confused, also magically poofing and Manufacturing are different as Creation and Darwinism, puff again Line 2 "All". Particularly on hot subjects, is a loaded introduction word. Man, its dangerous, surely you can understand why, Believed to be, Well thought, Widely understood, common acceptance is that, well taught science shows, would be considered more Gentle words. You do sound rather like "You don't mean round the world, it is impossible!", I don't mean to insult though, you see many respectable people have been, wrong. That's ok, I am wrong often, that's ok. I am not proposing deleting anything from the article, the line number two should get a better handle, or intro, or easier opening, especially as it is in the beginning of the Introduction. Also, the opposite of evolve or evolution is not creation nor manufacturing (creation experienced in reality) as you would suggest, but rather devolve or devolution, the loss of complexity, sometimes towards order, although not always, over a period of time. I have mentioned other suggestions please read above comments. I do rather like the word, stilts. I suggest this article put in a couple well placed stilts so that it can get up out of the WP:PEA. & :@Mann jess:, again, I do not mean to delete anything, or change the content more than ad a smooth intro phrase. The Dictionary, can offer the opposite of evolve, and most can be cited on here right? and again just on line two the word All may be a quote or direct citation in case I suggest we ad who says first, or if it is, as it apperars, WP:PEA, I suggest we use more of the discipline that is shown in the Origin of Life section on this article, and perhaps think to offer at least the definition of devolution to the article. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Anyone uninvolved want to close this discussion as Kaptinavenger clearly doesn't know what we mean by reliable sources? --NeilN 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No specific suggestion for article improvement which can be backed up by reliable sources. If sources are found, please start a new section with them listed prominently.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There appears to be False balance in some important articles cf. Supernatural Creation Power. I see a clear writing style in these articles that is very easy to follow. As opposed to Evolution and Big Bang theory which are lacking in Plain English though full of WP:PEA. Which to me infers Imago dei please also cf. Line 2 Truth . Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. --Considering Wormwood 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk • contribs)

@Kaptinavenger: Exactly what puffery is in this article? We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. You may find Introduction to evolution easier to understand. --NeilN 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kaptinavenger:, please to provide examples of "puffery" in this and other articles whose talkpages you have spammed with this same message. You know, as a show of good faith, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere... that's because your first list are not technical articles, and so they don't use technical language. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are highly technical articles concerning a complex scientific subject. You may appreciate Simple Misplaced Pages, which was created for this very reason. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I shall, Puffery can be seen in first word of the second line 1)"All" certainly can have a more neutral alternative. Not so "Bright" as it were. Perhaps, It could also be all, started with "The common consensus is". 2) The line, I did not help write, "There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories in science." puts the whole subject back into theory, the statement, one of the articles truest, and most neutral, made what the fourth paragraph? cf. Truth line 2. The observation I am making is that "understanding the opposite of a thing can be very useful when understanding the reality of a thing." I.E. the theorized opposite of Evolution, Theistic Creation, is not a notion in this article, though exceedingly discussed scholarly & scientifically, even today. I am not suggesting silence. Just offering some tips on NPOV. I could go on listing puffery here, and terrorism, though I have to go do some work on the Big Bang Theory, and it is already late, Happy Valentines Day ;-) I hope the conversation continues. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I hope the conversation doesn't continue as you make little sense. --NeilN 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaptin, please forgive me for offering advice, but I recommend that you read the Misplaced Pages articles on these subjects that concern you (evolution, big bang, etc.) and try to learn as much as possible from them. Otherwise, you might benefit from taking some formal courses, maybe at a local college. You might find them interesting. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also suggest reading WP:NPOV, since you referenced it. "Neutral" does not mean giving all sides equal weight; it means representing significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources from within the scientific community indicating that any of the sentences you've disputed are incorrect? Because we have a great deal of reliable sources indicating they are not. We cannot change the article without sources. — Jess· Δ ♥ 09:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem is unnecessary and rude. And as this article clearly uses multiple definitions of the word, evolution, I propose those definitions and their differences be spelled out clearly. Again I am talking about Plain English here, I am no biologists, though my ability to read is highly evolved cf. Truth, I do agree, things change over time, or evolve, not only in biology but in every science, but this article seems to have, that science, confused with the exo nihilism fish to frog leap of faith. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeating for your highly evolved reading ability: We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. You may find Introduction to evolution easier to understand. --NeilN 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I.E. one kind of Evolutionary Biology, studies the forward progression of biology, as it can be observed in reality. Another kind of Evolutionary Biology, hypothesizes the changes we can see and measure, in the variation of species, is sufficient change to account for the variations in all forms of life. Both, very scientific and technical ideas with expansive areas of study, including but not limited to Paleontology Biology and Physics. I could list a bunch of science journal articles on the debate, but as I am not meaning to change the science of the things, nor the truth of them, simply saying, Misplaced Pages should not give weight to ideas to help prop them up, even if it is hilarious when people believe it cf. Flat Earth. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The alleged "opposite" of biological evolution, which you claim is Creationism, has not been studied scientifically for literal centuries when it became blatantly apparent that there literally is no evidence of God going around magically poofing organisms into existence. Furthermore, I repeat my request for you to provide an example of "puffery," and this time, I wish to ask you use "Plain English," as your stilted dialect is very difficult for other editors understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Kapt, I've spelled out how wikipedia operates with respect to neutrality. For more detailed information, you can read WP:WEIGHT. We cannot change the article without referring to sources. Please provide sources, or we can't continue this conversation. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fink: Well. I disagree. You seem to have God and nothing confused, also magically poofing and Manufacturing are different as Creation and Darwinism, puff again Line 2 "All". Particularly on hot subjects, is a loaded introduction word. Man, its dangerous, surely you can understand why, Believed to be, Well thought, Widely understood, common acceptance is that, well taught science shows, would be considered more Gentle words. You do sound rather like "You don't mean round the world, it is impossible!", I don't mean to insult though, you see many respectable people have been, wrong. That's ok, I am wrong often, that's ok. I am not proposing deleting anything from the article, the line number two should get a better handle, or intro, or easier opening, especially as it is in the beginning of the Introduction. Also, the opposite of evolve or evolution is not creation nor manufacturing (creation experienced in reality) as you would suggest, but rather devolve or devolution, the loss of complexity, sometimes towards order, although not always, over a period of time. I have mentioned other suggestions please read above comments. I do rather like the word, stilts. I suggest this article put in a couple well placed stilts so that it can get up out of the WP:PEA. & :@Mann jess:, again, I do not mean to delete anything, or change the content more than ad a smooth intro phrase. The Dictionary, can offer the opposite of evolve, and most can be cited on here right? and again just on line two the word All may be a quote or direct citation in case I suggest we ad who says first, or if it is, as it apperars, WP:PEA, I suggest we use more of the discipline that is shown in the Origin of Life section on this article, and perhaps think to offer at least the definition of devolution to the article. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone uninvolved want to close this discussion as Kaptinavenger clearly doesn't know what we mean by reliable sources? --NeilN 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External Links

Is this a valuable or interesting external Link to add to the article? The video is not an encyclopedia-like scientific explanation, but I thought it might be interesting to other readers to see the evolution photographs presented in the video: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_lanting_s_lyrical_nature_photos?language=en "The LIFE Project, a poetic collection of photographs that tell the story of our planet" Jcardazzi (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Here is an excellent video of the Stickleback Supermodel of evolution.I highly recommend it. Great example of how evolution works in novel ways too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Ca-f4W9Q Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: