Talk:Evolution: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:42, 13 January 2008 editOrangemarlin (talk \| contribs)30,771 edits →Consensus: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:57, 13 January 2008 edit undoGnixon (talk \| contribs)2,977 edits →Consensus Next edit →
Line 388:		Line 388:

	Let us remind certain editors that a consensus is not formed by two Creationist editors gently masturbating each other into some religious glory. Consensus is formed by numerous editors who understand fully the scientific POV of this article and who assisted everyone in getting this article to FA status. Enough said. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)		Let us remind certain editors that a consensus is not formed by two Creationist editors gently masturbating each other into some religious glory. Consensus is formed by numerous editors who understand fully the scientific POV of this article and who assisted everyone in getting this article to FA status. Enough said. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:I'd appreciate it if some other editors would look in the article history and see if they agree with Orangemarlin's repeated reversions of my edits. Thanks, ] (]) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:57, 13 January 2008

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.

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
Current status: Featured article

Template:NewsBanners

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.

Archives
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 6–9, 2007 January 9–11, 2007 January 11–15, 2007 January 15–20, 2007 January 21–February 8, 2007 February 8–February 18, 2007 February 19–March 12, 2007 March 12–March 28, 2007 March 28–April 15, 2007 April 13–April 16, 2007 April 16–May 6, 2007 April 27–May 16, 2007 May 15–May 19, 2007 May 17–May 29, 2007 May 21–October 31, 2007 July 15–September 21, 2007 September 22–November 18, 2007 November 18–current

Terminology...Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory" (Right?)

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory"? I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson -Alex.rosenheim 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything a "theory" is more certain than a "law" in science. The trouble is that these terms can have multiple meanings, which can generally confuse the public and be seized upon by people who have an interest in keeping the public ignorant. Personally I don't think that rebranding the subject just for the sake of the scientifically illiterate is a good move.

As far as the article is concerned, we should keep it as it is unless the "law movement" gains consensus in the scientific community. Jefffire 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, and I think that it raises some very interesting points about scientific discourse, and the disconnect that it has with everyday speech. However, the current wikipedia article on theory makes the different uses that the word is put to in different contexts very clear, and it is linked from this article. I also agree with Jefffire that "law" is generally less all encompassing than "theory"; generally laws describe observed behavior (see e.g., ideal gas law), while theories gather together many observed behaviors (multiple laws) and attempt to provide a general framework in which to make sense of them. While as a political move, it might be useful to convince scientists to change their terminology to fit public discourse, as an encyclopedia, it is not our place to make such changes in advance of changes in the community. As they say to newspaper reporters, we report on the news, we don't make it. I might suggest, however, that this would be an interesting article for the theory page, since this piece deals with exactly the linguistic community issues that are relevant to that page... what does theory mean? And to whom? Edhubbard 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: You probably should bring it up on that page's talk page, just as you did here... Edhubbard 13:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As Jefffire points out, this needs to be adopted by the scientific community before it is notable enough to be included here. An editorial, even from a notable popular magazine, is not sufficient to introduce what's liable to be a confusing idea. Especially a fairly dumb idea like this one — does anyone seriously think that creationists will suddenly find themselves outfoxed by a language trick? Not to mention the fact that laws in the physical sciences are typically 19th century notions that, while still workable, are often only tangentially connected to reality (and note that it's still the special/general theory of relativity). Anyway, it's interesting to read this Wired article, but I can't see it improving the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Edhubbard...I had already posted similar discussions in the Scientific law article and the Theory article. (Good call!) But, regarding Jefffire's comments: the idea is not meant to "outfox" the ID community. (Although...I must admit that realistically, that is part of what i'm talking about) Primarily, I am suggesting that we stop using nomenclature as a hindrance in communication. If we mean something...we should say it. But if what we say is misunderstood by a majority of the audience, we can either educate the audience or change what we are saying so that the audience understands. This is not "dumbing down" the message. This is just the natural development of language. Nothing wrong with that.

If we mean that something is a "law", but use the term "theory" because a small group of people understand that to mean that a "calling an conclusion a theory shows stronger support than calling the same conclusion a law" then we are not communicating. If a position can be clarified by using different vocabulary, then that is what should been done.-Alex.rosenheim 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

People in the biology community have tried using the word fact, which seems to just add to the confusion. See evolution as theory and fact.--Filll 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That column in Wired magazine is great and I would recommend it to everyone. However, I have to agree with the sentiments expressed above. Namely:

creationists, being masters of language games and deceptive language, will not be fooled by calling the "Theory of Evolution" the "Law of Evolution". The word "creationism" used to refer to something else before being appropriated by creationists. To ride on the coat-tails of science, they came up with "scientific creationism", and then "creation science". Then came "intelligent design", and any number of other deceptive campaign titles (such as "Teach the Controversy", "Stand up for Science", "Free Speech on Evolution", etc) and deceptive book titles (such as "Explore Evolution") or even deceptive wording of petitions like "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". They will just adopt some other tactic, or even attack science for changing its language.
We have to reflect what is found in the scientific community, not to push the community or the language in a particular direction ourselves.--Filll 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article but I can appreciate its sentiment. To be honest when someone mentions biological laws I wince because it seems there are always exceptions to the rules in biology, but with evolution it seems appropriate. I can't think of any organism that hasn't evolved or is evolving-be it stabilizing or changes leading to speciation. A law usually implies "universal" recognition so a question mark exists about the universe but I have seen no certain evidence concerning life elsewhere. Given the information concerning life only on earth it seems a law would be appropriate to some degree-if life exists elsewhere the literature indicates scientist believe that life also probably evolved there too. I agree such a move would probably set off a firestorm. Religious fundamentalism repressing and suppressing science is a scary thought. GetAgrippa 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Law of evolution" in PubMed = Phrase not found

Search for "Theory of evolution" in PubMed = 234 publications

The phrase isn't used in the literature. Tim Vickers 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If a species has DNA and reproduces (that would be every life form on this planet at least), then it's under the influence of selection and therefore it's evolving. Seems like a pretty good candidate for a "law" to me. Not that I think the article should be changed until the scientific terminology does. Sheep81 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the use of power laws in patterning of growth in life but weren't there several evolution laws recognized at one time like Cope's law. Jog my memory. I guess they were more rules than laws. GetAgrippa 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more acceptable to refer to evolutionary theory as "the evolutionary laws" or similar? The plural form indicating that the theory is composed of multiple laws. I agree that "theory" has an ambiguous meaning to the general public (and even to some scientists). A law in the singular form however, should I think typically be expressible as a single equation? Evolution, like the incarnations of relativity, is too expansive for such a reduction. DoktorDec 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I should say though, it is pretty clear that the current naming convention is merely being seized upon by opportunistic ID exponents... I haven't yet heard of anyone attacking the theory of special relativity based on it's use of the T-word! Evolution's subject matter is apparently more innately frightening to some than Einstein's work. At least the "just a theory" tag-line might just die... DoktorDec 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Of course, you realize that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was heavily opposed, not for the use of the word "theory" but for the use of the word "relativity" because people misinterpreted that to think it meant everything was relative.--Filll (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A strong case for theories with crowd-pleasing names! Anyways, the above is sufficiently covered by the mention of theory vs. fact in Creation-evolution controversy. I think most biologists would see any change in the name of our beloved theory as some kind of concession to the ID crowd. DoktorDec (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the AIG informs its readers that arguments relying on "just a theory" should not be pursued (near the bottom of that page). So, well-informed creationists <insert contradiction-in-term jokes here> shouldn't be raising that issue here. Of course, that AIG page is also full of, uh, "second-order" fallacies and misinformation. Don't argue about evolution being only a theory, only that it's not a "proven fact"! <Sigh> Tez (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One does not have to listen to creationists very long before one starts to realize that they depend on obfuscation, lies, confusion, strawmen and simplistic reasoning. This article used to be the target of far more frequent creationist attacks before we "immunized" it.

We reduced the attacks by including the FAQ above, creating a simpler article (Introduction to evolution) to draw off some people, and removing almost all mention of creationism and criticisms from this article and putting them in dozens of daughter articles. By reducing the pressure on this article, it was allowed to improve considerably. Just look at the article history. --Filll (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You all know I have long advocate that this article include a concise explanation of how scientists use the word "theory," though of course the whole point of web-based encyclopedias is to take advantage of hypertext and links. That said I just want to point out: the general public understand what scientific laws are even less than they understand "scientific theory." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, the term "law" is used in science for things that are well-established and can be stated mathematically: Newton's laws of motion, for example, can be written as equations, as can the laws of thermodynamics. Not everything that can be put in numbers is called a "law," but the term isn't generally used for theories like evolution and plate tectonics, because if there are equations that will let us predict the details of either, we haven't found them yet. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are actually a number of equations that allow us to predict evolution's course, but evolution itself is indeterminate - that is to say, while we can say that certain traits result in certain alleles spreading through the population at some rate, and/or we can say how long it will likely take for a given allele to become fixed in a given population, we cannot say which allele will be fixed (just which is more likely to be so) nor can we say that higher survival chances always equate to higher survival (if your odds of dying a death by shark are 80% instead of 90%, that's nice, but if you're a very small subpopulation you could be wiped out by luck of the draw). Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the general public isn't really that confuse when scientists refer to evolution as theory. They know that there's a difference between "established scientific theory" and "a guess about what might have happened". And rarely do creationists (at least the ones who try to be taken seriously) use the decades-old "evolution is just a theory - even scientists say that" line. It just doesn't come up. Comparing biological theories to, for instance, the law of gravity might be useful in some circumstances, but "the Law of Evolution" is a misnomer. It would just be confusing. I wouldn't see anything wrong with referring to "biological laws" in the context of governing evolutionary processes, though. And that's from a creationist who understands that all the editors on here aren't out to "get" creationism. :) standonbible 05:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

evoution

evolution is too complicated ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.213.91 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

However, dropping the 'l' makes it simpler... Tomandlu (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution is written to be simpler. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an extremely complex science; perhaps why so many are quick to reject it over Intelligent Design. It does not take a lot of brains to understand that "God Did It". The Introduction to Evolution article hopefully serves as a good transition between the more detailed version here and the much simplier version in Simple Misplaced Pages. Plus ... it made Good Article Status!--Random Replicator (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's rather simple. Now understanding the theory of evolution through natural selection is a different topic altogether.--Svetovid (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The basic ideas are pretty simple. However, like any other subject, when you start investigating in more detail you rapidly run into a lot of complicated details. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Status Introduction to Evolution

I know many of you here have monitored the Introduction to Evolution Article. Perhaps your constructive criticism would be of help as we pursue FA status. I feel that it would lend credibility to the controversial topic to have the star and it would be appropriate; since we are the first link featured at the top of this article. So far two concerns have been raised over format of citations --- which we will fix. However this comment "The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate." deals with the general nature of the article; thus is of greater concern to me. Sorry --- don't have the link to the commentary page; but you can bounce off of Introduction to Evolution. Thanks for your helpful input in advance :) --Random Replicator (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird, sounds like paint the kettle black. Why should a science article on evolution be side tracked with possible undue weight about a social issue. I can appreciate the gravity and concern but the article needs to focus on the science I would think. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try this again. We have submitted the Introduction to Evolution entry for featured article status. It has been extensively edited by very talented people. At present - we are receiving rather knee-jerk commentaries of little or no value when it comes to improving the article. Again .... I would like to invite you to comment on the condition of the article and provided informed suggestions for improvement. I am seeking input from the names I am familiar with from this discussion page that are experienced on this topic. This is not a plea for support; but, for input --- for better or worse. It was based on discussions on this page that the Introduction to Evolution Article was created. The lack of interest from those whose opinion we value is very disappointing. I am not soliciting supporting votes - I merely asking for your input (support or oppose) and if it falls short then please tell us what we need to do to improve it or better yet ---- jump in and fix it!. Please join in the commentary. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate

No section on the problems with evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.232.154 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Current areas of research and points of debate, such as the importance of species level, rather than gene level selection, or the importance of genetic drift in speciation, are discussed throughout the article. This material fits best next to the section outlineing the concept involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be valuable to have a section that explores the debate between Gould (and others) and Dawkins (and others) on species vs. genes as objects of selection, as well perhaps on debates on the inpact of recent advances on evodevo on evolutionary theory (or, speculations). Editors have done a fantastic job of laying out clearly and elegantly what life scientists agree on and perhaps some editors feel more comfortable sticking to what we know for sure. But I think these debates are interesting and also it furthers our educational goals to explain to people what kinds of things scientists working within the same paradigm do in fact question and debate, and how such debates take shape.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Such debates are noted in the text, but not personalised or attributed. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... this is what I thought you were saying in your 12:50 comment, which is precisely why I feel we need a separate section. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Such debates ... not personalised or attributed". I think not naming Gould, Dawkins and other participants in recent / current debates about the theory of evolution is an inconsistency, since all sorts of other scientists and pre-scientists are named. It also misses an opportunity to help readers, since some of them will know the name of e.g. Gould and / or Dawkins from other reading, and giving the names will help such readers to get oriented. Philcha (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

PS The "Co-operation" section should mention the name of Robert Trivers, the problem of altruism in species whose genetics do not mandate eusocial behaviour and the concept of Evolutionarily stable strategy. Philcha (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Originally Nowak was directly mentioned concerning cooperation. Trivers is an interesting individual. I think he only published seven papers and two or three books his career. I also think he never completed a degree-as I recollect?? Names have come and gone in this article. Concerning the debates issue. Why not start a stub and start adding topics: Ernst vs Kimura, Gould vs Dawkins, Mutationism vs natural selection, Level of selection, etc. and then we can start filling in various issues and debates. This may be more appropriate for the Modern Synthesis article. Oops! Forgot to sign in. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would favor putting this kind of material in a subsiduary daughter article or two, especially if it is explored in any detail. This has been discussed here on this talk page previously. And several editors and readers have called for a separate article, with all this material collected in one place so they can see the "edge" of the science and where progress is being made.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be fine with me too, especially if this article is getting too long (otherwise I think it is generally good practice to start new threads in the main article and spin them off to daughter articles when they reach a certain length - but either way is fine by me)Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "good practice to start new threads in the main article and spin them off to daughter articles when they reach a certain length." One can get into paralysis by analysis if one worries too much about structure up front. I know some good editors who find this approach works well. Philcha (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages believes there is stronger evidence for evolution being true than 1 + 1 = 2, you can't argue with a mad man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.152 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New external link

There is a new journal called Evolution: Education and Outreach available free online. Article about it; 1st issue
Does anybody support inserting it into the external links?--Svetovid (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As a teacher, I was delighted to see such a resource. If you would care to add it to the external links on Introduction to EvolutionI am sure it will be well received there. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Should mention sociobiology

The article should mention Sociobiology. It's as important and controversial as punctuated equilibrium. The treatment of sociobiology should ensure that it is not confused with Social Darwinism. Philcha (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Start of intro

Introduction to evolution begins, "Evolution is the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms that results in the emergence of new species." I think this is a much better first sentence than Evolution currently has: it summarises Darwin's original reasoning; it focusses on the core issue, speciation; it would work even if all our current understanding of genetics were blown away by some new discovery; and of course it requires less prior knowledge on the part of the reader.

"evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next" is slightly inaccurate; from a genetics point of view it would be more accurate to say e.g. "evolution is a change in the percentage mix of inherited traits in a population from one generation to the next" ( or "... in the frequency distribution of inherited traits ...", but I prefer the simpler expression in an initial sentence) since a population itself does not have traits. I suggest this slight inaccuracy is a symptom of trying to pack too much theory into the first sentence. Philcha (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

debate section needed badly

The controversy of the Carbon 14 dating- examples like the Mammoth that had body parts that were dated using carbon 14 dating method which determined the Mammoth must of had a leg 50,000 years older than the rest of the animal.

The petrified trees controversy should be listed- petrified trees are found laying vertical through "eras".

Dr.Dino.com is a good place to find many of the arguments. Currently Dr. Hovin will pay $250,000 dollars if someone can prove evolution, and he will pay $200 to teachers or scientists to debate him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajatmerc (talk • contribs)

There is no such mammoth: IIRC, it was a story fabricated by Kent Hovind (whose "prize" is bogus, as those who have tried to claim it have discovered). And there isn't a problem with polystrate fossils either (see TalkOrigins). And in case you hadn't heard, Hovind is in prison, and will be there for the next decade, so it isn't exactly easy for him to take part in debates nowadays. But this is NOT the place to debate evolution. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching and http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22457.html explains that he was suppose to be exempt from the taxes. It goes on to state more about his case however, I don't think this is the real issue here. Please give me a link to the part of TalkOrigins that you believe to be pertinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajatmerc (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe that Carbon 14 dating does not work. Evidently you believe it works. However, both sides should be represented regardless of your personal bias.

My "personal bias" is towards those who are right and away from those who are wrong. But my "bias" is not relevant. Go to the top of this page and click on the "Evolution FAQ" link, which will explain Misplaced Pages policy on this issue.

BTW, Hovind had a long history of deliberate tax evasion (with outstanding warrants for his arrest in several states over a period of years). That's why he got hit so hard. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GSlicer (t • c) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have articles here on various aspects of the creation-evolution controversy, like Objections to evolution and Misconceptions about evolution, however we do not cover all the parts of the controversy (I hate to call it a debate) as fully as TalkOrigins or TalkReason or other related sites. The nonsense about carbon 14 dating is just that; nonsense. The National Institute of Science and Technology has a laboratory that is involved in calibrating and comparing these dating methods. Check out their website; there are no problems. There are literally 100s if not 1000s of dating techniques, not all involving radioactive decay, such as dendochronology (counting tree rings), counting layers of mud at the bottom of oceans, lakes, sediment from rivers, snow layers in Antactica and Greenland, growth layers in coral (going back well over 100 million years), magnetization stripes in sediments and ocean basalts, and so on and so forth. And guess what? All these and other dating methods agree with each other. No discrepancies. No conspiracies. It is all BS invented by crooks to trick you out of your money which they use to support their "ministries". Hovind is a liar and a crook in several different ways. An evil evil man.

By the way, there is a prize offered by the Amazing Randi for 1 million dollars which any creationist who can prove their claims can win. Of course, in years and years, none have ever made their case. The existence of a prize proves very little. The Flat Earth Society had a prize they offered to anyone who could prove that the earth was not flat, and they never gave the prize out to anyone. They also never lost a debate, ever, even when debating the most illustrious scientists from Oxford, Cambridge and the Royal Society. So prizes and debates don't really prove much.--Filll (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been invited to suggest this

May I use Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism as a WP:RS in this article?Ra2007 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Violate WP:POINT much?--Filll (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin suggested that this question needs to be asked on the appropriate page. Ra2007 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Which question? Which admin? Which page? When? Why? --Filll (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have no opinion that you can express, I'd rather not let you derail the section. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I guess you are trying to be obtuse. I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit more detail would probably help. What's the question? Is Ann Coulter a RS on evolution? Certainly not. Is she a RS on what evolutionary scientists think? I would say not. Is she a RS on what creationists think? No idea. Is she a RS on what Ann Coulter thinks? Probably. So, what's the context? bikeable (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Ra2007 was just repeating what the admin said, and it sounds like just the advice that any admin would give Ra. I strongly suggest that Ra takes that advice. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she discloses extensive footnotes and is reliable. She should be as good of a source on what evoutionists think as a Rolling Stone Columnist is on D. James Kennedy, for example. 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra2007 (talk • contribs)

Ah, the mythical "evolutionists". Now I see where you're coming from. Why don't you go back to religion and leave the science alone? .. dave souza, talk 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I would love too, but it appears that on Misplaced Pages, Rolling Stone (magazine) is a RS on evangelists, and so I thought a political pundit would be a reliable source here on a scientific article (especially since she has sooo many footnotes, just like TalkOrigins.) And the NCSE has been deemed a reliable source on D. James Kennedy too. Strange, I know, but true. Ra2007 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed references and footnotes, in places like Science Magazine, Nature Magazine, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences?--Filll (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now Filll, I think Ra2007 is making a WP:POINT. Which looks very much like disruptive editing to me. Perhaps Ra2007 should take some time off to study Misplaced Pages policies? ... dave souza, talk 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, while it may appear that way to you Dave, the Coulter book is really quite good, and deserves to be used as a source on this article and on the article Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, and other articles. Ra2007 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's how is appears to the rest of the community that makes the difference in the end. Being so, I encourage you to carry on so we can get this over with. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with rolling stone, don't they have real journalists? Coulter is all about propaganda. And if what you're doing here is not WP:POINT, then nothing is. David D. (Talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been getting bad advice. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or good advice, depending on the desired outcome.--Filll (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes, eh? See Richard Feynmann's classic essay on "cargo cult science." Coulter can have all the footnotes and references she wants, but the planes ain't gonna land. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, you should sit down and read through these "footnotes" that Coulter claims to use. I've seen more honesty at a 3 card monte game. At midnight. In a rough spot in NYC. Baegis (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, be fair, didn't Dembski (The Great Newt of the Infromashun Age) write it for her? . . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone give me the citation for Feynman's article? Given the amount of pundit-produced blather that passes for knowledge in the US today, it is always refreshing to read something thoughtful and well-written by an actual scientist. As for Coulter, well, when she has produced something on population genetics, molecular gnetics, paleontology, or ay adjunct field of evolutionary biology, in a peer-reviewed journals, we can use her as a reliable source on evolution. Some people want to retreat to the dark ages, but in this article we have standards. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's reprinted in various places on the web, but linking to copyvios is naughty. Googling "feynmann cargo cult science" will get you there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I will tell you when Coulter can be a good reference for this article. People like Ra2007 want everything to be fair and equal, including forcing those who are not of his faith to pay to force public school teachers to proselytize children from families who are not of his faith to subscribe to the discredited beliefs of his faith in publicly funded secular science classes, or else be fired or jailed. So everything can be fair and equal when I can force all the religious leaders to regularly stand in front of their congregants and tell them that all the tenants of their faith are horse manure and lies, and force their congregants to hear that message and to pay for it. At that point, things will be getting closer to fair, and I will argue that Coulter might be a suitable reference for this article. Until the time that I can ensure that all religious beliefs are discredited as ridiculous nonsense meant to fleece teh gullible regularly in the churches, mosques, temples and synagogues, it is really not something I can support. Thanks...--Filll (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article does not discuss godless liberalism, so I am at a loss as to what the POINT might be. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the book did have a chapter (or two, haven't read it) "on" "evolution." But the reason this is POINTy is that Ra2007 disagreed with the use of Rolling Stone as a source for some claim in the D. James Kennedy article. He tried to use this case as a metaphor on that talk page, but people weren't seeing/didn't agree with the parallel. So then he comes here asking if his metaphorical comparison (which his own logic leads him to believe isn't valid) should be enacted here. His goal is to make a point here that Ann Coulter isn't a good source on evolution then use that to argue his other case (or possibly he's trying to use the other case to push in her as a source here in a riposte). It won't work in any case, as people over there didn't agree that a parallel existed at all, so the outcome here is irrelevant. --Infophile 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively over at the Kennedy article. Rolling Stone is a major magazine with a history of investigative journalism and editorial oversight and fact checking. This is in contrast to a book written by a pundit talking about a topic the pundit has no training, degrees or education in. Enough POINT. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it: this article will never be fair and and balanced until it includes an account of how Tzacol, the Builder and his consort Bitol the former; Gucumatz the feathered serpent and his consort Tepeu the conqueror; Xpiyacoc and his consort Xmucané (these last two are the grandparents of Hunajpu and Ishbalankej, the hero twins of the Popul Vuh story); Alom the father god and his consort, Qaholom, the mother; u Qux cho, the spirit of the lake., created the first human beings. You secularist evolutionists always want to keep religion out of things but the thunder gods will drink your blood and you will be sorry unless you acknowledge them! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and humans

It seems a shame that this article for the general public doesn't mention dinosaurs or humans in the "Evolution of Life" section. I would think that section is the most important one of the article for many readers. Gnixon (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be WP:BOLD and include the information in the article as you see fit. The beauty of the Wiki. Just remember attribution and WP:RS. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think conveying things well would involve judgment calls that others around here are better equipped to make. I would have trouble, for example, deciding which sorts of dinosaurs to mention, or deciding which time to pinpoint in human evolution. I'm reluctant to ruin what is now a nicely concise overview. Perhaps one of the local experts would humor me by taking a shot at it in this space? Gnixon (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ota Benga

Some of you may be interested in taking a look at Ota Benga, an article about a Pygmy man who was displayed among great apes in a zoo in 1906. An editor has been adding and re-adding anti-evolution links as references, Answers in Genesis among them. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Science community backing evolution

For those of you continually looking for scientific support for evolution (as a fact), this week's Nature Magazine have joined in the debate. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7175/full/451108b.html) ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Both Science and Nature are dedicated to supporting evolution science. The AAAS has been envolved for several years, and there is a host of articles related to the debate. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this brochure from the National Academy of Sciences (mentioned in Ciar's link) as a standard resource for this talk page. Gnixon (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely clear that the number of scientists in relevant fields that dispute evolution are less than about 0.01% of the total. Many of those who "dispute" evolution, when asked, like Behe, support common descent and natural selection etc. The idea that there is some huge movement among scientists against evolution is just pure BS told by liars and crooks.--Filll (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to edit war but

This change: should be discussed first.--Filll (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You can revert it if you think it is bad. But why do you think it is bad? The reasoning for it is spelled out in the edit summary. Ra2007 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, it probably should. In the end, I think we should really go to just what the source says. Unless someone who wished to edit in the "by scientists" line has the book to confirm that it's there, I think it's safest to leave it out (better to be vague than wrong). --Infophile 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted myself, but would be interested in why uncited vaugeness is preferred over uncited (but likely verifiable) specificity? Ra2007 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question is, is it verifiable? I have no problems with those words being in there if someone around here has read that source and can attest to it backing up that notion. However, I'm not going to put words into the source's mouth. It could be that the source said it was commonly accepted among everyone - remember that the big problem people had with Darwinian theory was that he applied it to humans as well, and didn't place them aside or put them on the pinnacle of evolution. It's not unreasonable to say that many people of that time accepted that the other species on earth had changed over time. --Infophile 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the "by scientists" version is probably verifiable, and wonder about the version without it. Neither is verified with citation to reliable source, though. Ra2007 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but the original version (sans "by scientists") was presumably put up by someone with the source at hand. That lends a little weight to that version's likelihood of representing the source accurately. Also, dave souza makes a good point that there actually weren't many "scientists" before that time. --Infophile 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit hard to guess just what Bowler means. Arguably there were no scientists before 1830 or so when William Whewell coined the term. It seems more likely that he's thinking of the general acceptance by then of Georges Cuvier's Catastrophism, which natural philosophers (including most evangelicals) viewed as explaining the known succession of fossils as a series of Creations. Wide acceptance of transmutation / evolution follows on after the 1860s. . .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing something. The scientific method predates 1830 and there were definitely scientitists, at least in activity maybe not by name. ???? GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The complete sentence is "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted by scientists since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear." Why this is controversial (even if the source does not explicitly say "by scientists" it is obviously implicit. Besides, I'd like to check, but the whole book is cited without reference to a specific page or chapter. Maybe the whole sentence should go? Ra2007 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. It's not obviously implicit to me. I know that many non-scientists (or non-scholars, should I say?) accepted this back then. It seems reasonable to me that the source might have implied that this was widely accepted. Perhaps we should use a different term, such as "scholars" or "academics," though. Or maybe we could change it another way, such as "...has been generally accepted since..."? --Infophile 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To agree with somebody else, we should get the source, summarize it (and also reference the page number). Ra2007 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the sentence might be inaccurate is because many (probably most) people in the early 1800s did not accept that species changed over time. I'd wager most people didn't even know it was a possibility. The acceptance was rather among the scientific community. This is an article about a scientific topic, and the sentence is in a subheading relating purely to science, not to cultural beliefs at all, so I don't know that the distinction needs to be made. We don't preface every other sentence in this or other scientific articles with "scientists think" or something like that... it's implied. But if we do make the addition, "scientists" is clearly preferable, because "scholars" or "academics" could also include religious scholars or academics, for example, which would not have necessarily accepted the idea. Sheep81 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Except for a few backward places with an education problem, evolution is not in dispute. Even in Christianity, the source of almost all objections to evolution, the fraction of the 2.5 billion Christians that object to evolution is a tiny minority of assorted malcontents, most of whom do not know what evolution even is, and could not pick it out of a multiple choice list. In the first world nations, only the US has any appreciable level of creationism, and in the US the number of people that accept evolution (either God-guided or naturalistic or whatever) is well over half. Those that do not "believe" in evolution are very few, or those who do not know what evolution is. So I think the sentence is perfectly appropriate and accurate as is.--Filll (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While that may or may not be true, the sentence refers to the early 19th century, so... Sheep81 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From reading Numbers publications, it is quite true. Note that it does not refer to the theory of evolution, but the actual observation of change. I am sure if this reference is unsuitable, we can find other references which make the same point. Most people had no problem with animals changing. Even in the early 1800s. By 1900 almost everyone had been reconciled not only to this, but Darwin's explanation. Even evangelists. Even Clarence Darrow, the prosecutor in the Scopes trial. It was really only Mcready that created the current nonsense around 1910, and no one else would listen to him since he was a kook. He made gradual headway, but few subscribed to his extremist views. And then finally in the early 1960s it had a huge revival and has slowly grown since but still is quite minor, and mainly in the US.--Filll (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Er, think you mean William Jennings Bryan there. Clarence Darrow was the defending attorney.) --Infophile 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OOps. Right you are.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If one could dispute that non-scientists accepted evolution, why one should not dispute the same thing for the scientists in general? "Scientists" include a lot of people, not only biologists.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the original insertion of "by scientists," so perhaps I should comment. The word "accepted" to me seems to allude to a debate, in which context it's appropriate and necessary to qualify with "by scientists" or "by scientists and most everyone who learned about it except some who found it conflicted with their religious beliefs." I hoped "by scientists" would be a simple, acceptable fix. ~~I'm sorry I was wrong.~~ Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a much better fix, which I missed the first time around: swap "known" for "accepted," as in "The fact that species change over time has been known since XXXX." Presumably this was the originally intended meaning. ~~I'd go ahead with the change, but, well, you know....~~ Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "Scientists theorize that" in the first paragraph seems similarly problematic in that it can be misread to suggest a lack of certainty. Better to just cut that phrase. If for some reason it's important to link to "theory", there are better ways to do it. Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for a couple of catty comments above. I'm going to BB and make the changes I suggested after reading this discussion. Cheers, Gnixon (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, isn't the intro getting a little wordy? I think I remember a much cleaner version from a few months ago. Anybody want to try taking a hedge trimmer to it? Gnixon (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the "Scientists theorize that..." bit to keep people from adding "theory" to the first sentence over and over. My point was that evolution itself isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon that scientists have observed... the theory in question is that evolution occurs by natural and sexual selection, genetic drift, random chance, etc. I think a link to Theory#Science in the first paragraph is important so that the uninformed can find out what a theory actually is if they come to visit this article, since that seems to be a major misunderstanding among the general public. Thanks for switching that word in the other sentence too, I think that ought to resolve the problem. Sheep81 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but I think the comment at the top that links to Evolution as theory and fact is enough. Of course, it's not wrong to use the word "theory" in the lead, but I think it causes more problems than it solves. We're justified in just removing it whenever it crops up (with friendly explanation, of course!). Gnixon (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see that "theory" crops up naturally in the last paragraph. I linked to Theory#Science the first time it was used. Is that okay? Gnixon (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was linked there before, I just moved it up to make it more obvious. It's really not a big deal to me. By the way, I agree the lead is a bit wordy now. Sheep81 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"By scientists"

Regarding "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted (by scientists) since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear.", the fact that there had been changes was accepted by the majority of educated people, including clergymen – science was not a profession until the 1850s, and professors of science subjects would commonly also teach theology, as did those who Darwin learnt from at Cambridge. The establishment also held firmly to the idea that species were fixed and immutable, and rejected "evolution" which had a slightly different meaning at that time. They therefore interpreted the changes as a series of creations and extinctions. Darwin's impact from 1860 onwards was in making the idea of transmutation of species, later called evolution, respectable, so that it became the scientific consensus in the late 19th century. However, evolution had long been popular with many in the lower classes, and following the publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 it gained wide public support, even though it was rejected by the scientific establishment until the 1860s. So, the "by scientists" is unnecessary and misleading. .. dave souza, talk 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Obviously "by scientists" was a mistake. Mea culpa. Do you think the current sentence/paragraph conveys things correctly? To me, it reads like we're saying educated folks agreed species evolved, but didn't know why. That reading is obviously contrary to your reference. I suppose the current sentence isn't technically wrong, but it seems misleading to me. Gnixon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been known since the early 19th century" is, as you say, technically correct, but perhaps we can find a concise way of being more explicit. Nothing springs to mind right now, but suggestions welcome. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, by saying "species change over time" we are referring to something far more general and inclusive than Darwin's theory, something that is the exact opposite of the "fixity of the species". Anyone on the farm involved with breeding stock would have a pretty good idea that animal populations can change over time, since they were doing it actively and consciously. In fact, Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden has published a book that uses bible passages to explain concepts of evolution, and shows that the information in the bible actually supports the notion of evolution as well (not surprisingly, since farmers would notice all kinds of things like that and they found their way into the bible of course). Lots of theories came before Darwin's theory that discussed the change of population traits over time including his grandfather's theory, which was quite popular. So even in the late 1700s these things were quite commonly discussed, is what I infer from what I have read. However, what was not quite understood was why such a thing might be true, if it was true. --Filll (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason "on Earth" is necessary? How about "While the fact that species change over time..."? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, we still know nothing of life elsewhere. Currently trying out "While the fact that there had been a series of changes of species over time has been known since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear." Still doesn't seem satisfactory. .. dave souza, talk 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this sentence referring to faunal turnover or changes within species? You could say something like "Changes within/between species have been recognized since the early 19th century..." Sheep81 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From the late 18th century there was recognition that different eras had different organisms, thus the Silurian, Cambrian (both named after ancient British tribes) Devonian etc had distinctive fossils. A minority explained this as transmutation of one species into another, Lamarck being a leading exponent of this idea, but the majority opinion was that each era represented a separate Creation. A variant of Lamarck's ideas was popularised in 1844 by Vestiges, and Herbert Spencer published ideas of evolution, both in nature and in human society, from 1857, but it was The Origin of 1859 that introduced Darwin's idea. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion: "While it had been known since the early 19th century that new species had emerged and others gone extinct, how this happened was initially unclear." ... dave souza, talk 14:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More clear, less concise. Seems really tricky to get this right. I'm starting to feel like the reader needs more background than can be squeezed into one sentence. Another option would be to just cut it and start with the next sentence. Gnixon (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we say explicitly when and how changes in species over time were first recognized? If we're alluding to pre-Darwinian ideas, which seems like a good idea, we should be more precise about them. Gnixon (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Let us remind certain editors that a consensus is not formed by two Creationist editors gently masturbating each other into some religious glory. Consensus is formed by numerous editors who understand fully the scientific POV of this article and who assisted everyone in getting this article to FA status. Enough said. OrangeMarlin 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if some other editors would look in the article history and see if they agree with Orangemarlin's repeated reversions of my edits. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: