Misplaced Pages

Talk:Evolution: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:21, 14 December 2005 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Misconception section: Steal from EvoWiki!← Previous edit Revision as of 16:45, 14 December 2005 edit undoCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits Let's get another featured articleNext edit →
Line 832: Line 832:


Isn't EvoWiki under the GFDL just like Misplaced Pages? Let's just take some of their stuff and put it on here. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Isn't EvoWiki under the GFDL just like Misplaced Pages? Let's just take some of their stuff and put it on here. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

== Let's get another featured article ==

I know ] is already a Featured Article but I think we can do one better and get another evolutionary biology-related article up to Featured Article Status. I have access to all research materials at the University of Maryland (including all notable biological journals), and more importantly, I have the desire to see this through and get it done. I just don't have the subject matter down pat quite yet. I was thinking maybe ]. This is still in the planning stages though so I welcome any other suggestions. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:45, 14 December 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:Farcfailed

WikiProject iconEvolutionary biology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Template:TrollWarning

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article.

Talk archives


Missing from the article

I believe one or more important types of biological evolution are missing from this article. See Horizontal gene transfer, Antigenic shift (important in current H5N1 avian flu problem), Reassortment. WAS 4.250 20:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would classify those as mutations, and as I repeatedly have to emphasise, mutations do not cause evolution. Mutations are like background noise; they are too few in number to effect any noticeable change, even big mutations (1/N=~0). Evolution only occurs when a mechanism of evolution (i.e. selection, drift or migration) acts on a novel mutation to change that frequency upwards. If that is not enough, a high level of mutations required to produce evolution induces sterility in fruit flies.— Dunc|☺ 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I put this suggestion in the more appropriate talk page (for mutation). But mutation in general is given very little space here; it is the engine that causes the variation that is selected among in the process of evolution and everyone agrees selection can select OUT stuff - maybe a litttle more data on how that variation gets IN the genes in the first place would help. Also genes crossing from one part of the tree of life to another (Horizontal gene transfer) should be at least mentioned. Its not as neat and tidy as the typical evolutionary tree would have it. WAS 4.250 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be technical, since evolution is defined as change in allele frequency, mutations necessarily cause evolution. Of course, what we mostly care about isn't evolution in general, but adaptative evolution, which mutations alone are not sufficient to explain, and where selection becomes vital. I think we would do well to talk more about the limited role of mutation, both because it belongs and because it would be good for the article to anticipate and resolve the common confusion about evolution being random just because mutations are. We should certainly list the various sources of mutation, as well as things like crossing over, which aren't mutations as such but can have much the same effect. Alienus 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
But do mutations change allele frequency? Only in extremely small populations - the change from 1.0 to 0.999 (a mutation in a population of 500 diploids) isn't really a change in allele frequency - 0.999 is not significantly different from 1.0. As for crossing over - does it actually split genes? Guettarda 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I made no claims about the magnitude of the change, just that it constitutes change of some sort, hence qualifies as evolution. Having thought about it, it occurs to me that mutation can introduce a brand new allele, which may then become quite popular if it is selected for. Consider a mutant fly with resistance to DDT; a significant bit of evolution, triggered by a fit mutation. Again, it's something of a technicality, but I think a meaningful one. As for crossing over, it can definitely cause gross chromosomal abnormalities, which certainly qualifies as a mutation, and I seem to remember that it can split genes, thus potentially changing or even creating alleles. If I'm right about this, it should be mentioned somewhere. And if I'm wrong, that fact likewise deserves mention. Alienus23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
If you define mutation evolution as "change in gene frequency" it has to mean significant change. Gene frequencies are not static - you will, necessarily have some variation from generation to generation. Change has to be significant change in order to call it evolution. Otherwise evolution becomes a trivial concept. Guettarda 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think of mutation as a "change in gene frequency" - instead it is the creation of a gene when neither of the parents had the gene. Trivial changes like the variation from generation to generation are what evolution is all about, and evolution itself is trivial. Natural selection and the modern synthesis are more complicated and interesting. What is really interesting is that those trivial changes from one generation to another are not entirely random, because the more fit organisms have a better chance to increase the frequency of their own genes in the population. With enough time the trivial changes are not so trivial. --Ignignot 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Meant to say "evolution", not "mutation". Oops. Guettarda 05:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

mutation can introduce a brand new allele ... Where else would alleles come from? WAS 4.250 14:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think crossing over can produce a new allele but doesn't qualify as mutation. I may well be wrong about this. Alienus 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mutation could indeed receive a better treatment here; for example, I think a discussion of mutations that might produce gene duplication is in order, since this is believed to be a major mechanism for evolution of new proteins. Horizontal gene transfer, maybe... I don't know if I'd consider crossing over (recombination) to be mutation or not... If all these processes that alter DNA are considered the article could balloon quickly. Graft 16:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed about the gene dupe stuff; we might want to mention myoglobin and hemoglobin as an example. Another good one, documented in a recent Dawkins book, is duplication of the genes for the light-sensitive chemical (name eludes me at the moment) in retinal cones. As for the mutation issue, see above and also, how about a broader heading, like "Sources of genetic variation"? Alienus 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I've found the article lacking too. "Sources of genetic variation" seems a good idea. -- Ec5618 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Great, we've resolved to pin the bell on the cat. Now all we need is for someone to step up and implement what we've agreed upon. Any takers? Alienus 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Embryology

Why nothing on embryology? (unsigned)

The study of embryological development? I have heard that the embryos of hmans and other mammals and even birds look strikingly similar in the first stages of development. Humans have tails and slits that look like gills (but are not). Oddly, embryo doesn't say anything on the subject, and neither does embryology.
Still, I don't quite see why the evolution article should include information about embryos. -- Ec5618 15:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Embryology/comparative embryology should be mentioned in evidence for evolution but that page is a bit of a mess. — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments "disproving" evolution.

First off, let me begin by saying that I am a supporter of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis as well, if that's reassuring at all. I am not suggesting there is evidence or an argument proving evolution false.

Still, however, there is a big amount of people claiming evolution is nothing more but a load of rubbish. Here are the numbers of adherents to various religions, taken from the article on religion: 

1. Christianity: 1.9 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Hinduism: 1 billion
4. Buddhism: 400 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Primal-Indigenous: 300 million
7. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
8. Sikhism: 23 million
9. Spiritism: 15 million
10. Judaism: 14 million
11. Bahá'í: 7 million
12. Jainism: 4.2 million
13. Shinto: 4 million
14. Cao Dai: 4 million
15. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
16. Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million
17. Tenrikyo: 2 million
18. Unification Movement: 1.5 million
19. Ayyavazhi: 1.2 million
20. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
21. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
22. Rastafari movement: 600 thousand

The first two of these for example, Christianity and Islam, are held to contradict evolution by the majority of their followers. Aside from groups like Creationists, both the Bible and the Qoran mention God creating the various species. With that, rendering evolution compatible with these faiths requires a rather liberal interpretations of God's word.

Thus, with so many fierce deniers of the theory, I believe that it would be highly beneficial to provide a list of some common counter arguments and show why they do not disprove evolution(if they do not). The article on the technocratic movement has such as a section the format of which I believe could be used.

I understand that a wikipedia article is not a discussion forum, but an article on a theory as controversial as evolution cannot be complete without some information given on the origins of that controversy.

That is covered in the social effect section. As is explained there, accepting evolutionary biology as science is not viewed as contradicting Christianity by the major mainstream Christian churches, who do not follow Biblical innerancy, along with many other religions, including many of the other examples you cite above. Please check your facts.
As for scientific arguments against evolution, there are none. — Dunc|☺ 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
See also creation-evolution controversy--Nowa 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
All you need is right here. That's the best place on the web debunking the common and not-so-common creationist arguments. We would never even get this Misplaced Pages article within a shadow of approaching the depth and utility of that page, so it's best not to try - just link it. --Cyde 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the author is suggesting we need to include the anti-evolutionary issues as fact but that they are sufficiently widespread that they must be acknowledged in the context of this article. I agree, however, that keeping them to a different page is preferable - if only to keep the article manageable! --Davril2020 13:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The current version of the article contains a section on "Social controversies" which links to relevant articles about religious and other objections to evolution. The primary article on evolution should be about what evolution is, just as the primary article on AIDS should be on mainstream, expert assessments of the disease rather than the more fringe theories (which are linked to at the end of the article). Whether something is "mainstream" or "fringe" in this sense has no relationship to the number of non-experts who believe in it. --Fastfission 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I like that phrase "The truth of X has nothing to do with the number of non-experts who believe in it"--Nowa 22:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Extinction

Can someone provide a reference for the "50% of all genera" figure? I'd be inclined to say the number is actually much, much higher than this. Graft 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are refering to recently added stuff by me, I copied the data from the relevent extinction articles here at Misplaced Pages. Going to those articles for their source lists is one option. (It really sucks when people replace quotes with a paraphrase or move a reference to a data item to the bottom so you can't tell what reference supports what statement.) WAS 4.250 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sooooo much vandalism

It really sucks that this page is being targeted so often by immature brats who know their evidence against evolution is so weak that their only recourse is vandalism. I'm not suggesting that we lock up this page, but rather, continue to improve it so often that the vandalism edits are drowned in a sea of positive edits. It just gets tiring looking at the edit history and seeing that most of it is a cycle of random IP vandalizing and then being reverted. --Cyde 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid stupidity knows no ideological or philosophical home. The creationism and evolution-creationism controversy pages are equally bad. --Davril2020 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Ironically, the very theory of "intelligent design" is proof that it wasn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You both are entirely accurate (Davril2020 and Cyde.) On Abortion, another divisive topic, we regularly revert both tirades against the "facist white male bible-thumping republicans" (those are presumably from the pro-choice idiots) and edits where every instance of the word "abortion" (including, oddly enough, in the section on spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage) with "MURDER" and every instance of physician or doctor with "MURDERER" (presumably from the pro-life version of moron.) Really, complete idiocy is non-partisan in any dispute. Vigilance is the only answer.
I like your attitude, Cyde - may I add that to my user page, and quote and/or reference it? KillerChihuahua 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course - actually, I don't think I'm even allowed to say that you aren't because of the GNU FDL! --Cyde 00:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
ROFL, I wasn't thinking about that in this context - thanks much though, I appreciate it. KillerChihuahua 00:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You can not only say it, you can sue about it. The copyright license you agreed to in contributing just means you'll lose if you sue. But you already knew that... WAS 4.250 18:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thier is no proof of evolution, stupid.
kent hovind offers $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution yet no one can.
get on limewire and download kent hovinds video, 100 reasons why evolution is so stupid
it is packed with scientific fact of why evolution is stupid and fake. and its not copyright or anything so dont get on my butt about telling you to download a movie. also his entire creation seminar is non copyright on purpose so the word of it can be spread.

No, it is not. See this and this and, on Hovind's just being a fraud, this and this . The reward is a scam. The reward is not for anyone who can "prove" evolution, it is for anyone who can prove it to him. Since he is a fundamentalist who does not understand science, no evidence will ever convince him. I spent thirty seconds writing this. That is thirty times the amount of time creationism deserves. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Since he is a fundamentalist who does not understand science"
he taught biology or some form of science for 15 years. he knows alot about science

No, he never taught biology. He taught religion and called it biology. He is a fraud, pure and simple. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, most creationist groups actuall disavow Hovind (AIG is one, I believe). He's an unpleasant man and he has done a great disservice to the creationist movement over the last decade or two. It is people like him which generate this perception of creationists as intellectually dishonest. --Davril2020 15:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, so other creationists have a more pleasant facade and are better at appearing honest? Good to know. Alienus 17:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a key difference between someone who is mistaken and someone who intentionally falsifies and distorts. --Davril2020 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually went and saw Kent Hovind in person a month ago and I wrote a detailed write-up on it if you're interested. To say that Hovind "intentionally falsifies and distorts" is an understatement. --Cyde Weys talk 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Now my eyes are bleeding. --Davril2020 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Removed irrelevant troll/human interaction again. Please try using this page to improve the article. Stop feeding the troll.

Ok Break it up!

<drill sergent>
Misplaced Pages is not usenet, ladies! And if the darn policy page forgot to mention that one (policy pages are apt to do that a lot these days), I don't particularly care, because wikipedia IS an encyclopedia!


So less of the yappity yappity usenet quack, and more of the cooperating on writing an encyclopedia!

Company, GO BACK ON TOPIC! <blows whistle>
</drill sergent>

Kim Bruning 07:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim,
  • Thanks for the reminder. However, I am unsure why the "cooperating" and the "ladies" comment is necessary? Is a POV involved there?
  • I have tried to be careful to direct my comments directly to the content of the main page, i.e., should matters of faith be included on the evolution page. Especially since the topic of evolution strikes very close to matters of faith. What I was trying to say was that the issues of faith do not belong on the evolution page, and tried to explain why; if that intent was unclear, then I take responsibility, and hope to correct it now.
  • "Sarge," I share your concern about the "yappity" yap, however I do believe we are on topic. Democratic processes are not like military ones; democratic processes (which is also a wiki policy) encourage the give-and-take approach to decision making, military processes encourage more "top-down" and autocratic decision making. Democratic process demands a great deal of communication skill, which includes patience, we cannot shorten the process. Education is a very painful process, in this case education about the role of science in faith, and vice-versa. So the editors of this page must allow that process to occur. Evolution causes change in our ideas, our institutions, and our relationships; all change is painful, but especially corporate change regarding faith. So we feel more of that pain on this page than on others. Again, discussing the role of faith in evolution is on topic.

Steven McCrary 15:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oh the pain, the pain" Z. Smith Phd. 17:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC:-)
However, this particular question is one that has been tested and re-tested, and the current stance on this article represents the consensus of a long history of editors. There's only reason to re-engage in the debate if there's substantial reason to believe that consensus will be overturned. Otherwise it's just needlessly going over old ground. Entertaining the desire of every fool who comes along to have this debate is a big waste of time and space. Graft 02:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do my Changes to the article keep getting Reverted??

In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation

This implies it is Factual, which it is not.

A more correct Version which I add and keeps getting changed is:

"In biology, evolution is a theory that states that the process by which ... "

Explain which is more correct, and be prepared to back it up with solid logic and reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.141.10 (talk • contribs)

Your version said "In biology, evolution is a theory that states the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species," which is not a complete sentence. The introductory paragraph and the following paragraph devote plenty of space to discussing the theoretical aspects of evolution, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Evolution IS the process by which populations etc. etc. etc. It's a definition, and as such belongs in the first paragraph. It is defining the process, not the theory of the process. - Randwicked 07:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
KnowledgeSeek if the Grammor is incorrect why not correct it instead of deleting it? I love how you completly avoiding my intentfull purpose of my comment, and just foccess solely on grammor. Yet you make no effort to correct the grammor and save the orginal point or revision I was trying to make to the article. I think this is called Hidden Motives, and can be construed as censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.141.10 (talk • contribs)
Please add new talk sections to the bottom of the talk page, and please add new comments to a section by using the "edit" link next to the section header. I already left you a message on your talk page about this. In the first place, I did not delete your sentence, other editors did, so there is nothing for me to correct. Secondly, I did not focus solely on the grammar. My statement had two sentences. The first mentioned the malformed sentence fragment. The second explained my belief that the theoretical aspect is already well covered. Please read both sentences before making wild accusations. Also, this is not an easily reparable error such as a missing comma. With your addition, the sentence no longer makes sense. It is similar to changing "Gravity is the attractive force between two masses" to "Gravity is the theory that the attractive force between two masses", which doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, if you introduce a change that others disagree with, the burden is on you to repair it. There is an obvious way to fix the sentence, and that's by removing "the theory that", which is exactly what the other editors did. Finally, your vague warnings of "hidden motives" and censorship are completely unhelpful. What hidden motive do you propose I have? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is factual. You really need to read Stephen Jay Gould's famous essay, "Evolution as Fact and Theory. It should clear up your misconceptions. --Cyde Weys 06:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bird Flu and evolution

Regarding the current statement in the article that the theory of evolution by natural selection is helping in the fight against a bird flu pandemic, I checked the references but could not find the connection. Could the contributor (or anyone else) please elaborate? It's an important point, but I want to be sure it is well documented, otherwise perhaps it should not be in the article. --Nowa 12:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two places where evolution is being applied; the current evolution of the virus, and relationship to the 1918 pandemic. I leave these links for the use of whoever is editing that section of the article, and for Nowa:
KillerChihuahua 12:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, Thanks for the links. I found the second article particularly informative about how Bird Flu may have evolved. Maybe I'm missing something, however, but I still don't see anything in either article that indicates how the evolutionary studies are directly connected to the development of new medicines. On the contrary, the second article indicates that there may be nothing to worry about and no new medicines are needed. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going recommend that the sentence "Their study is being used to create new medicines and other health aids..." be removed. Any seconds? Opposed? Don't care?--Nowa 15:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what time frame you had in mind, but please don't delete it. I will work with you in improving it. No one is more all about sourcing than I am, but general statements like "time exists" are different than "he died on oct.5" Be forewarned that improving it will increase it and not decrease it as a pro-evolution paragraph, 'cause evolution is as true as "time exists". On the other hand, there are many details about evolution that are not known (just as there are for time (just cause time exists now how do you know it existed yesterday? Maybe all the memories in your head were put there at creation last night)). I'm going to start by looking at the two references just mentioned and probably adding them. Then I'll try to deal with the specific critism you just gave. Please be as specific in what you what as possible. I'll work hard on identifying sources and others and you can help out with phrasing it just right. Thank you for helping! WAS 4.250 15:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I took the liberty of moving the references here for the moment. Probably one key reference is all that's needed for the article.
Timeline of H5N1 Evolution of H5N1 (technical) Evolution and the avian flu (nontechnical) why act what is being done (research based on knowledge of evolutionary details

) --Nowa 17:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've skimmed through the articles, and I still don't see anything that indicates that the theory of evolution by natural selection is having a significant influence on the development of ways to combat bird flu. On the contrary, one article states "Reality check time: Nobody — nobody — is sure this (emergence of human pathogenic bird flu) will happen. Well, the experts are sure some flu strain will produce a pandemic eventually, but they don’t know which and they don’t know when and they don’t know how bad it will be."
When the current evolution article states "(The basic mechanism of evolution) are being used to create new medicines ..." that tells me that the theory of evoluion is somehow being used to suggest new medicines, shorten development time, increase the probability of success or otherwise provide a measurable benefit to drug development. All I really see in these articles is that new strains of H5N1 are developing and if one of those stains becomes pathogenic to humans, we will have a pandemic. This may certainly be an example of evolution, but it doesn't give any guidance to developing drugs.
Perhaps a discussion of the evolution of H5N1 belongs more appropriately in the secion on evidence for evolution.--Nowa 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what references to Bird Flu could do to contribute to the article in the long run. Unless there is an actual epidemic, the story will be forgotten within a few years (perhaps even months) and the statement will become redudent. So unless it contributes new evidence of evolution it should be left out. josh 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Nothwithstanding Josh's comments, I take back a bit of what I said in the prior posting. I looked more carefully at the technical article on H5N1 evolution and it was clear that figuring out the evolutionary relationships between the various outbreaks of human and avian flu has at the very least helped figure out that the flu is avian in origin and that this, in turn, has helped direct the development of drugs. I therefore step aside on the issue, unless other considerations indicate that the sentence should not belong. In the meantime, I will attempt to wordsmith it a bit.--Nowa 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm better at sourcing than wordsmithing. I hope we have a happy collaberation. Cheers. WAS 4.250 19:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

All done. I put the technical evolution note in as an end note. That seemed to be the most on point about how evolutionary mechanisms were at least guiding the efforts to prevent an outbreak. Others my wish to add other references as well.
I kept the indication that H5N1 was known popularly as "bird flu" for the sake of the readers who are unfamiliary with "H5N1". --Nowa 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes just made. Looks good to me! Thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 20:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

After the anon visited us at ID it got me thinking we should have a criticism section here. It could in brief describe valid scientific criticisms of the past, pointing to Lamarckism and several other notable failed evolution hypotheses (if any), and then detail 2-3 major creationist objections and the response in brief (macroevolution and information), citing the main article at the beginning of the section/paragraph (Creation-evolution controversy). Unless we can establish creationism as non-notable, it deserves more than a link in this article.

For example we came across this in ID, Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row, you don't need to read it as I took the basic argument from the article as follows:

"Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself," he said. "It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence."

I think at the very least this should be addressed in the new criticism section; with links to more complete explanations from there. - RoyBoy 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I urge caution: a cardinal's opinion about a scientific subject is a non-expert dealing with an issue from a religious POV. I would not want to see a quote from Dawkins on the Christianity article. KillerChihuahua 16:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
minor point: the cardinal seemed to be supporting evolution in the scientific realm while requiring design guidance in the theological realm, but wording it in such a way as to hint at a possible change in Catholic policy from teaching evolution to giving comfort to ID. ...dave souza 18:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean we need to put the quote in there, but just that the notion that information somehow requires intelligence to exist/form should be addressed in an criticism/misconception section. - RoyBoy 22:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We have entire articles dedicated to creationism, its variations (ID), its movements, and its conflict with evolution. I would support a section on the misconceptions used to suggest evolution is not a fact. We already note areas of reseach in evolution (rather than throwing up our hands and saying look something we don't know therefore god). WAS 4.250 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself. It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence." is a perfect example of what could be dealt with in a common misconceptions section. WAS 4.250 16:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent way of addressing this, WAS 4.250! As a suggestion, we could start with the 5 most common misconceptions as given at TalkOrigins:
  • Evolution has never been observed.
  • Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
  • There are no transitional fossils.
  • The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
  • Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
It may eventually become large enough to become a sub-article. KillerChihuahua 16:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I humbly suggest for consideration some wording I put forward earlier for an Unguided evolution sub-section of Social controversies, anticipating that the AfD of the unguided evolution article would result in a redirect to evolution, which it has. The misconceptions list is a good idea and the necessary counter arguments could link to the relevant section earlier in the article, but keeping it brief could be a problem. To meet the original point, perhaps Social controversies could be renamed Controversies and criticisms:

Many people oppose these theories on the basis of their religious convictions, and some use the neologism unguided evolution to describe a process without the supernatural intervention they consider necessary to produce species on the basis of their teleological assumption that there is an organizing principle behind natural laws and phenomena. This view is prevalent among creationists and proponents of intelligent design, and is also taken by some supporters of theistic evolution.
As a modern science, biology uses a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world. It does not assume the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural or attempt to investigate such matters, as supernatural phenomena must by definition be beyond natural investigation and explanation. Biologists consider that genetic differences arise randomly in organisms, but the survival of mutations in a population is not random but is guided, albeit without any conscious or intelligent intervention, through the pressures that arise from the operation of natural selection. Creationists consider this to be evidence of an atheist bias in evolutionary biology.
hope something along these lines can be included. ...dave souza 17:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Misconception:Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.

Response:

It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, "good enough" is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.

Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal — but that doesn't mean they got "better." After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and what was "better" a million years ago, may not be "better" today. What works "better" in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress. " from WAS 4.250 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Misconception section sounds like a great idea. - RoyBoy 22:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here. Why is the evolution article lacks many of the controversies surround it? I put two links of websites against evolution and it gets reverted right away. My attempts to discuss it with the user also been ignored. How is this neutral as wikipedia should be? I wouldn't attempt to change the article as I'm not a good writter at all, but at least I should be able to post some links at the bottom of the article. As far as I know, evolution is not a fact, but it seems to have been presented as such here. Please keep wikipedia neutral and stick with the fact. -unsigned

Evolution is a fact. WAS 4.250 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, evolution is a fact. See Stephen Jay Gould's famous seminal essay Evolution as Fact and Theory. --Cyde Weys talk 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the addition of a criticism section that outlines the most common arguments/misconceptions. It may well wind up in its own article, which is fine, but we need to give creationists a place to see their arguments. Perhaps it'll disuade them from vandalizing this page quite so often. Alienus 04:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I started this thingy, I might as well get a section draft on the go, please help below as I did an off the top of my head job of it. - RoyBoy 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Misconceptions

The vast majority of criticism and controversy involving evolution stems from misconceptions perpetuated by those with little background biology and science:

  • Evolution has never been observed.
Speciation as well as novel behavior and adaptations have been observed; also many predictions evolution has made, from the fossil record to DNA similarity between species and "kinds" has agreed with evolutionary theory.
  • Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The law explicitly states that the disorder of a system will over time become greater. Since the Earth is not a closed system it receives energy from the Sun; although order can be seen in life on Earth, the amount of disorder the Sun has created during that time far outweighes the order found on Earth.
  • There are no transitional fossils.
There are numerous examples of transitional fossils between every major animal group. It should also be noted evolution requires many transitional species, but has no bearing on the frequency of fossilization. As transitional species populations would be small and short lived they are inherantly less likely to be fossilized.
  • The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution proceeds by natural selection acting upon random mutations. Natural selection is not random.
  • Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
See: Fact and theory in science

In the face of explanations and evidence for old misconceptions neo-creationists have come up with more subtle misconceptions:

  • Matter cannot organize itself.
Crystals such as diamonds and snowflakes can and do self-organize; likewise proteins fold in very specific ways based on their chemical makeup.
  • Evolution cannot create information, which is a manifestation of intelligence.
Physical information exists regardless of the presence of an intelligence, and evolution allows for new information whenever a novel mutation occurs and is kept. It does not need to beneficial nor visually apparent to be "information". However, even if those were requirements they could be satisfied with the appearance of nylon eating bacteria, which required new enzymes to digest a material that never existed until the modern age.

Misconceptions

Misconceptions about evolution and how it works:

1. "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life."

2. "Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better."

3. "Evolution means that life changed 'by chance.'"

4. "Natural selection involves organisms 'trying' to adapt."

5. "Natural selection gives organisms what they 'need.'"


Misconceptions about the evidence for evolution:

1. "Evolution is 'just' a theory."

2. "Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it."

3. "Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution."

4. "Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life."

5. "The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it."

6. "Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable."

7. "Most biologists have rejected 'Darwinism' (i.e., no longer really agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace)."


Misconceptions about the implications of evolution:

1. "Evolution leads to immoral behavior. If children are taught that they are animals, they will behave like animals."

2. "Evolution supports the idea that 'might makes right' and rationalizes the oppression of some people by others."


Misconceptions about evolution and religion:

1. "Evolution and religion are incompatible."


Misconceptions about teaching evolution:

1. "Teachers should teach 'both sides' and let students decide for themselves."

2. "Evolution is itself 'religious,' so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment."


from WAS 4.250 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, thank you for putting together this helpful list. I believe that it can serve as a checklist for the article itself. In other words, a good article will explain evolution in such a way as to avoid these misconceptions. Personally, I think the best way to do this would be in a non-polemical way. In other words, rather than say "Some people believe x, but they are wrong" or even the slighltly more benign "It is a misconception that ..." I think the article should just explain carefully what evolution means and why in such a way that it leaves no room for misconception. WAS 4.250, do you think there are places where the article fails to do this, but can and should? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put together this list. I saw an article about a suit about some web site, looked at the web site to find out what they were sueing about and ran across the list above. Again, the list AND RESPONSES TO THE ITEMS are at . WAS 4.250 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So what? The only purpose of this page is to improve the article. The question is, how can we turn your comment above into something that actually improves the article? I was making a suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You say "So what?". I doubt you have any clue how happy - elated even - your comment made me. Thank you for every word. You have no idea the roadblocks I've faced. People who want to revert because I quoted rather than rephrased. It's been crazy. That said, trying to be legal everywhere is important. Slrubenstein, Slrubenstein, Slrubenstein; let me enjoy this moment before the fair use vultures decend to destroy us.... WAS 4.250 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, you are welcome. If anyone raises fiar use objections, then paraphrase and provide a citation (see Misplaced Pages: Cite sources — comply thoroughly with this policy and two-thirds of the objections will vanish. Note: citing sources is not the same thing as lengthy quotes or links). Also, I really mean it that the material should be incorporated into the article in a way that it is not being presented as a "response" to someone's objection. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

organization

I did some work on sections 2 and 3. I am not satisfied with the organization of sections 3-8, although I am not sure how the material should be organized. Be that as it may, I do not see the logic for the organization, and nothing in the introduction prepares me for the organization of this material (to be clear, I have NO issue with the content). Offhand I can see two principles of organization:

  • the first one is based on a distinction I have highlighted in section 1: provide evidence for the "fact" of evolution, then provide evidence that supports the "theory" of evolution (e.g. evidence that supports each element of the modern synthesis).
  • Another possibility is suggested by something else in 1.1 (which I did not write) — the three elements of the modern synthesis. Reorganize all of 3-8 into three major sections, each one corresponding to one of these three elements.
  • Perhaps others can come up with another, better way to organize the material. If they can, I urge them to explain the logic of the organization somwhere in the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
'Be bold. Do it. I like your recent help to the article. If you do something everyone hates it can be easily reverted. I have little doubt the current setup (except the ROUGH organization WITHIN the "Mechanisms") was unplanned. Try something better. Reverting is easy. WAS 4.250 20:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, but the reason I haven't done it is because I really am not sure what is best. I'd really like to know what Graft and Guettarda think on this, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the issue is the overall organization of the article. It IS not adequate. Neither you nor I have a pat answer for what is adequate. Any suggestions? WAS 4.250 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I really would like Graft and Guettarda to take a crack at it. They have made significant contributions to this article over a long period of time and I think would have very constructive ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we consult Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Evolutionary biology, but it doesn't seem to help on the structure of this article. Are there any WikiProjects for near-top level science articles? Good examples of such articles? --Rikurzhen 23:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

britannica

this is the britannica outline with some wording modified. this may be a starting point for working on the structure of this article. feel free to change things below and build the outline for this article starting with this template. --Rikurzhen 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. General overview (this article)

2. The science of evolution (maybe Evolutionary biology)


So you're suggesting plagiarism on a massive scale? Britannica isn't the end-all and be-all, by the way. --Cyde Weys 06:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
obviously not, but the FAC removal mentioned Britannica as a standard against which to compare this article. in fact, i believe we have material that covers most of this outline already and merely need to find a good organization. --Rikurzhen 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is the part we need to agree or not agree to:

1. General overview

2. Science of evolution

WAS 4.250 16:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The current setup is:

  1. Science: fact and theory
  2. Who studies evolution?
  3. Ancestry of organisms
  4. Evidence of evolution
  5. History of life
  6. Basic mechanisms of evolution
  7. Adaptation
  8. Speciation and extinction
  9. History of evolutionary thought
  10. Social controversies

Maybe restructure that into this:

  1. Evidence of evolution
  2. History of evolutionary thought
  3. Social implications of the theory of evolution
  4. Science of evolution

WAS 4.250 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your proposal at top - Overview, 2 sections followed by 3 sub-sections each. KillerChihuahua 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

See the article: I neither added nor deleted content in the article, but I grouped them in accordance with the proposal being discussed. Even if it gets reverted, by going to history, one can look at it and make judgements. WAS 4.250 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would do it this way:

1. The concept of evolution

  1. non-scientific notions of evolution (evolution=unfolding or progress)
  2. scientific understandings of evolution
  • the relationship between fact and theory in science
  • evolution as fact versus evolution as theory

2. The rise of evolutionary theory

  1. pre-Darwin (like, Aristotle to Lamarck)
  2. Darwin's theory (explain the theory clearly and put in whatever data is necessary to explain specifically how he arrived at his theory, but no "evidence" beyond that
  3. Mendelian Genetics (again, the bare minimum to understand the theory
  4. the modern synthesis

3. Evidence for evolution as a fact

  1. fossil evidence
  2. directly observed evidence

4. Evidence for the Modern Synthesis

  1. evidence for the relationship between genotypical and phenotypical variation
  • mutation
  • drift
  • founder effect
  1. evidence that species consist of populations with genetic variation (i.e. is a statistical phenomena) rather than an ideal type
  2. selection and adaptation
  • principles of fecundity, r vs. k strategies
  • principles of morbididty, competition for resources and predation
  • natural selection
  • Sexual selection
  • Baldwinian selection
  • the selfish gene
  • evo-devo
  • microevolution
  • macroevolution

5. Social meanings of evolution Or something like that. Just an opinion, anyway Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I wanted to re-write this bit in the article about mutation/variation but I think this needs some more organizational work for clarity. SLR's proposal above is good, but I'm a bit leery of an outline that's based on presenting evidence rather than explaining the current state of theory. These might go hand-in-hand, but I'd rather the latter came first, and the former was fitted in around that. Thus, I think SLR's section 4 should be more like this:

4. The Modern Synthesis

  • Heredity
    • genetic material, genes
  • Mechanisms of evolution
    • mutation (genetic variation)
    • drift
    • gene flow
    • selection and adaptation
      • natural selection
      • sexual selection
      • evo-devo
  • Speciation
Does that sound worthwhile? Graft 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I have no objection to your modification. Are you willing to start doing the actual reorganizing? The article really needs it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Be bold. We can always revert. WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

restructuring even more?

People seem to have accepted the top level restructring, so I guess the next step is whether or not more restructuring is done. I propose candidates for restructuring the subsection "Science of evolution" be presented here or actually be done in the article (we can always revert). (Talking about it first is always good).

What we have now is: 

   * 2.1 Science: fact and theory
   * 2.2 Who studies evolution?
   * 2.3 Ancestry of organisms
   * 2.4 History of life
   * 2.5 Basic mechanisms of evolution
   * 2.6 Adaptation
   * 2.7 Speciation and extinction

The britanica example/model provided above has its "science of evolution" section divided into these 3 parts:

  • Process of evolution
  • Species and speciation
  • Molecular evolution

WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

evowiki

also, maybe evowiki can help us. however, their license may not be compatible. --Rikurzhen 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

human chimp comparisons

this will probably come in useful soon:

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010056

Humans and chimpanzees diverged approximately 6 million years ago, making the chimpanzee the closest extant relative to modern humans. The characterization of sequence changes both at the nucleotide and the structural level is therefore important for the understanding of primate evolution, including human-specific traits. At the nucleotide level, the identity of the genomes has been estimated to be 98% to 99% , excluding insertions and deletions and other small rearrangements. The chimpanzee Chromosome 22 (PTR22), which is orthologous to human Chromosome 21(HSA21), was the first to be sequenced and the majority of the rest of the genome is represented as a draft assembly . The exact nucleotide substitution rate for the alignment of these sequences is 1.23% (excluding insertions and deletions). Taking insertion and deletion events into account, the sequence identity has been estimated to be about 95% .

  1. Fujiyama A, Watanabe H, Toyoda A, Taylor TD, Itoh T, et al. (2002) Construction and analysis of a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map. Science 295: 131–134. Find this article online
  2. Li WH, Saunders MA (2005) Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437: 69–87. Find this article online
  3. Ebersberger I, Metzler D, Schwarz C, Paabo S (2002) Genome-wide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet 70: 1490–1497. Find this article online
  4. Hacia JG, Makalowski W, Edgemon K, Erdos MR, Robbins CM, et al. (1998) Evolutionary sequence comparisons using high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Nat Genet 18: 155–158. Find this article online
  5. Thomas JW, Touchman JW, Blakesley RW, Bouffard GG, Beckstrom-Sternberg SM, et al. (2003) Comparative analyses of multi-species sequences from targeted genomic regions. Nature 424: 788–793. Find this article online
  6. Watanabe H, Fujiyama A, Hattori M, Taylor TD, Toyoda A, et al. (2004) DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature 429: 382–388. Find this article online
  7. Britten RJ (2002) Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 13633–13635. Find this article online
Bo-ring. So what? None of this is especially new. Graft 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
An older claim now has an overly prominent position in the article. I found this to update it but haven't gotten around to it. --Rikurzhen 04:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand

"Genetic data indicates that humans and chimpanzees have highly similar DNA sequences. At the nucleotide level, the identity of the genomes has been estimated to be 98% to 99%, or about 95% when insertions, deletions and other small rearrangements are taken into account." has been added to the article, obviously from the prior talk subsection. I don't understand how insertions and deletions are "small" when the smallest unit of information is the nucleotide. It seems to me that the "real" number is the 95% number. The only way 99% would a more real number is if the LARGER changes simply moved blocks of data, like rearranging chapters in a book or the order of subroutines in a computer program, so their use as instructions was unaltered. But we know little about the meta-code that instructs the cell on the timing of calling those subroutines (making the RNA that makes the protein), so even if the protein making nucleotide sequences are 99% the same, the difference in the other nucleotides making it add up to 95%, we simply don't know how much of that so-called junk is actually meta-code. Even long chains of junk can be metacode by changing the physical locations of other things. And remember, this code self executes because it IS physical. Can anyone clarify this and justify using a number other than 95%? Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good reasoning about why 95% is more functionally relavant (that's why I added it), but we do probably need to keep mention of 98.5% (although not necessarily as the first sentence of the article). The reason is that 98.5% is difference due to "substitutions" for human-chimp divergence, and substitutions are what the molecular clock calculations are based on. Also, we need to mention it because everyone has already heard the "old saw" about 98.5% and would be confused if we didn't mention it. --Rikurzhen 17:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Then it would make sense to give the old number saying it is an old number, give the more up to date 99% (or whatever) number that is useful as a molecular clock and say that's what it is good for and give the up to date 95% (or whatever) number and say it measures all the changes including those that we know affect gene function and those that may or may not ("junk genes"). Make sense? WAS 4.250 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
All of these numbers really depend on what you're interested in measuring and have more to do with setting a competent standard than anything else. If you want to compare divergence between human/chimp and something else, you want a number that works well universally. Percent identity is actually an extraordinarily shitty way to look at divergence, since it is a function of alignable sequence. That is, we say there is 99% identity between human/chimp based on substitutions and 69% between human/mouse based on substitutions. But there is much less alignable sequence between human and mouse, so the TRUE divergence between human and mouse is underrepresented, skewing that percent-identity figure higher. A much better figure to use (the one favored by most evolutionary biologists) is something like the number of synonymous coding substitutions per site between the two species. But, obviously, this is a much more technical number and not really suitable for presentation to the public. Thus, the shitty number, percent identity, is used. Since it's shitty, we might as well make it as simple as possible and take percent identity of substitutions. That's the best defense I can give for percent identity according to substitutions. Graft 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, please, please, please make the necessary changes to the content of the article. WAS 4.250 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I read recently (in Seed?) it was established that it was 98.77% similar. Although an article in AnswersInGenesis contends: "However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did." - RoyBoy 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly that article at AiG is false. 98.77% similar means exactly that: 98.77% similar. How would one even take insertions and deletions into account and ignore them? How do you even know what is an insertion and what is a deletion? Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor whose DNA we do not have. --Cyde Weys talk 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thermodynamics (removed)

All of my comments have been removed (please do not reinsert them).

Can you suggest an improvement to this sentence: "The chemical evolution from self-catalytic chemicals to life (see Origin of life) is not a part of biological evolution." that introduces the subsection "History of life" in the article? Putting in all of that would be too much of a diversion from the topic of the article (biological evolution). WAS 4.250 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Thermodynamic evolution" doesn't really have anything to do with biological evolution, which is what the evolution article is expressly about. I don't think we should throw unrelated terms in as it just tends to confuse the reader. For what it's worth, this is a tactic that Kent Hovind is fond of - he defines evolution as some broad umbrella containing six different fields of science - only two are actually related to biological evolution and the others are related to astrophysics, geology, etc. I don't think we should go down that road. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is about biological evolution, not "chemical evolution", which is a term I am hesitant to endorse because I have never heard any scientists talking about it, only creationists. Creationists like to conflate other parts of science with evolution so they are easier to cast doubt on and attack (at least in the mind of creationist adherents). They will conflate simple astrophysical phenomena like supernovae and call them "cosmological evolution" and attack it. This page is about biological evolution only, not the grand scheme creationist definition of evolution which encompasses pretty much every field of science that the Book of Genesis conflicts with. --Cyde Weys 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that there was a physical "evolution" of matter (atoms did not always exist), and a chemical "evolution" of molecules (RNA did not always exist), prior to biological evolution. I believe there is a futher evolution now taking place that has to do with knowledge; but because we are in the midst of it, it is hard to get a firm grasp on it. See Transhumanism, Artificial intelligence, Cognitive science, Nanotechnology, Technological singularity. WAS 4.250 06:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

New Species

Can anyone provide and unimpeachable example of a new metazoan species (e.g. not bacterial, viruses, etc.) emerging by natural selection in the past 200 years? I think the presentation of this fact would strengthen the article.--Awon 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

check here --Rikurzhen 03:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem I've had in discussing this is that ANY change in the last 6,000 years is defined by doubters as "microevolution" and any change whose evidence is fossils or genes is considered part of the way God made the world 6,000 years ago. It's like talking to someone for whom "time" for the last 6,000 years is "microtime" and part of science, but time prior to 6,000 years ago is "macrotime" and didn't really happen cause God at creation made the world to look that way (and test faith to boot). I was raised a believer in creationism and know it from the inside. WAS 4.250 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe in a God that put thousands of LIES in every cell of every living thing. WAS 4.250 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awon: all the evidence you need is right here. The new fruit fly species that were created in the laboratory are a pretty good example. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To reply to the question at top, the article already mentions the Hawthorn fly, which evolved in the 20th century and is a new species. QED. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning! Large reorganization

Err... So that was my big edit. One HUGE caveat: lots of material probably got deleted, so PLEASE compare and add stuff back that you think is important, but please respect the new organization and rewrite material as appropriate instead of merely cutting and pasting. Also, extensive rewriting and new text is probably required. For example, I didn't write much of a header for the "selection and adaptation" section.

Lots of new material as well; please review it. Graft 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Cyde wrote (in an edit summary)

rv. to last version by Cyde; evolution is not "controversial" amongst scientists, and this is a science article

Old intro paragraph:

Evolution is the controversial scientific theory that populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species. In biology, evolution is considered to be a "fact" by 99.8% of biologists, but as many as 5% of other scientists question the theory, and only about 15% of the general public (in America accepts it.

First, it's a controversial theory in terms of the public - not in science. No one said Biologists are fighting about it - although 5% of non-biologists polled disagree with it without raising much of a fuss. The article should clarify that the controversy (A) exists but (B) is not a controversy among biologists.

Second, there is no reason to censor the information that as many as 5% of other scientists question the theory, and only about 15% of the general public (in America accepts it. Uncle Ed 16:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, none of your edits are appropriate for the opening paragraph on the article about biological evolution. Go put them in Creation-evolution controversy. --Cyde Weys talk 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are going to relegate this information to Creation-evolution controversy, there should probably be a link to that article in the intro of this one. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
There already is a link to Creation-evolution controversy, it's in the See Also section where it belongs. It certainly should not be in the opening paragraph. Or should we link to Flat Earth in the opening paragraph of Earth? Teach the controversy!! --Cyde Weys talk 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
And it is awful U.S.-centric to highlight one country's controversies in the heading of a general topic. Anyway, the "question the theory" part is highly confusing at best, misleading at worst. Does it mean "Question that evolution occurred?" or "Question the currently accepted mechanisms?" or "Question that it is responsible for all speciation?" or what? What kind of "scientists" are these? etc. --Fastfission 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon that can be observed, and a subject matter for a scientific theory and other investigations. I don't want to censor anything, but the religious argument over evolution has its own article and the additional facts you have found regarding adoption are more proper there. If they are important enough to understanding the controversy it might make sense to incorporate some of it in the short summary section in this article. However, brewing an edit war and accusing other editors of censorship, when we are just trying to make the best article possible, is unnecessarily antagonistic. Demi /C 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why are you burying the link to Creation-evolution controversy? — goethean ॐ 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Buried? It has its own section. --Fastfission 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Which is frankly more than I think it deserves. --Cyde Weys talk 16:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Why do you think the link to Creation-evolution controversy deserves to be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Frankly I think it's less important than Sexual selection or Cladogenesis, which are also "buried" in the See Also section. --Cyde Weys talk 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In any event, to call it a "controversial theory" in the intro is confusing at best (it is controversial among the American laypeople, it is not controversial amongst scientists in the slightest. 5% of non-biologists is not a controversy). It is far more neutral to say simply that it is a scientific theory, discuss its meaning and genesis, and then note its controversy. Which is more or less what the current article does, but I wouldn't be opposed to having a short sentence along the lines of, "Since its inception in the late 19th century, the theory of evolution has been seen as challenging many religious conceptions of the origins of humanity, and as such has often been involved in many social controversies." Evolution, of course, had its scientific disputes, but the basic one of those ("Does Darwinian evolution more or less work? Did it happen?") was resolved by 1910 with the new synthesis. --Fastfission 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I added a small line to the opening section, after the short "history" bit. I also made sure the religious aspect was a little more explicit in its section. I think that's an ideal approach. Explain the theory, explain the history, explain the controversy. In that order. This is how things are done on the Creationism page as well. --Fastfission 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course evolution is a theory. Have you never heard of "the theory of evolution"? Of course, evolution is also a fact. I suggest you read Stephen Jay Gould's seminal essay Evolution as Fact and Theory. --Cyde Weys talk 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There used to be an article called Aspects of evolution which clarified the distinction between:

  1. new forms of life developing out of old - as in "Question that evolution occurred?"
  2. processes by which it develops - as in "Question the currently accepted mechanisms?"
  3. a comprehensive theory - as in "Question that it is responsible for all speciation?"

Thanks to FastFission for bringing this up again. Uncle Ed 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Point 1. The intro block must describe the process of evolution before the theory of how it occurs. This seems to have been corrected. The process meaning of evolution can be demonstrated with an example -- "Avian flu may evolve the ability to transmit from human to human." Avian flu would undergo the population level process of evolution, not for example the individual level process of development, a word which is often incorrectly applied.

Point 2. The intro block should not include opinion poll numbers from U.S. survey data. The actual numbers are not essential to understanding the controversy. (They're just details.) The U.S. is an extreme outlier amongst rich nations wrt religosity, so U.S. numbers are probably not globally representative. And for any topic the U.S. public demonstrates a surprising level of science illiteracy. For example, something like 15% of those polled believe the Sun goes around the Earth. --Rikurzhen 19:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"undertanding the controversy"? This isn't the controversy article. Understanding it has zero to do with the introduction of "evolution". - Tεxτurε 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Content fork

See Religious views of evolution. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aspects of evolution --ScienceApologist 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Gallup poll on creationism and evolution --ScienceApologist 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See also PFAW poll on creationism and evolution --ScienceApologist 18:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Can evolution be guided by God? --ScienceApologist 14:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Guided evolution --ScienceApologist 16:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. It is a fair characterization that User:Ed Poor has created numerous POV forks regarding evolution/creationism. He continues to do this. They should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've asked you repeatedly what you mean by "POV forks" and you have not answered. You even left the project, rather than defend your charges of "POV pushing". Now you're back, openly branding yourself an "apologist". Sounds like you're here to push a particular point of view. And from the "science" part of you username, would I be right in supposing your main reason for being in this project is to push the POV that science is correct on evolution?
And when you list these content forks, are you doing this to enlist support for censoring them via deletion or non-merged redirects? Do you not know that Misplaced Pages:content forking policy permits spin-off articles which clarify difficult topics? Uncle Ed 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ed, POV-forks are defined by Misplaced Pages policy. These are not simply spin-off articles, they are articles that were created that directly contradict other articles that have been editted and maintained by a lot of other editors about these subjects in a more balanced, fair, and NPOV fashion. That's why they are up for deletion. --ScienceApologist 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." --Misplaced Pages:POV_fork FeloniousMonk 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you read Misplaced Pages:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_which_summarize? Uncle Ed 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Content forking, a how-to guideline for Misplaced Pages

  • Even if the new article was created because it's a particularly controversial aspect of the article subject, that does not mean that the new article is a POV fork; if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.

Ed, new articles are POV forks when they are written to satisfy an agenda. One agenda you have is to present the controversial assertion that most Americans do not believe in evolution as fact. Another agenda you have is to claim that there are different "aspects", "definitions", or "forms" of evolution even when this is defined explicitly on the creation-evolution controversy page as a uniquely creationist POV. --ScienceApologist 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I already knew that about Misplaced Pages:POV forks. But I am not asserting that most Americans "do not believe in evolution". I am requesting that you and the other editors on evolution permit me to include in any and all relevant articles the report by the Gallup polling organization that (1) 15% of Americans support evolution (as unguided) and that (2) 37% believe that "evolution (or development, if you prefer)" of life was guided by God.
Now whether evolution / development guided by God is or is not compatible with the Theory of Evolution may be a controversial question. Either it is obviously incompatible, as Dunc has told me repeatedly, or it is obviously compatible (as some pro-evolution writers and groups say), or it's not really very clear. If it's not clear, there's probably a controversy about it.
The best thing to do when one aspect of an article is unclear or controversial is often to make a sidebar article on it (see Misplaced Pages:Content forking).
I don't see why you want to go against Misplaced Pages guidelines. Nor do I understand why you (and often FM) accuse me of POV pushing. I have no agenda, and I'm not pushing any point of view. I simply want Misplaced Pages to report the truth.
Do you think Gallup or People for the American Way have an agenda? Uncle Ed 19:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember of ever accusing you of POV pushing, just improperly blocking people you're engaged in content disputes with. No, what I think you're doing is insisting on inserting marginally relevant factoids in the wrong place in a scientific article to discredit its status as a theory. One could only consider that pushing a POV per an agenda were doing so a significant component of a particular religious/political group... Never mind. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, thanks for clarifying that. No, I am not trying to discredit Evolution's status as a theory. I regard it as a "scientific theory", which is why I made this edit.
You might be confusing me with Creationists who say "only a theory", but that's not me. And if there's confusion over what a "theory" is, I suggest we beef up the Theory article. I have always thought that a Theory (like Einstein's Theory of relativity) is held in high regard by scientists. Uncle Ed 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the theory of evolution is held in higher regard than Einstienian relativity. There are multiple fronts attacking relativity as we speak - quantum gravity, quantum loop gravity, string theory, m-theory, "the electric universe" (although it's bogus), etc. There is no organized alternative to the theory of evolution in science. THAT is how strong it is. --Cyde Weys talk 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an absurd debate. It doesn't matter how many people understand or believe in evolution. I frankly do not understand calculus, but that does not mean that articles on engineering, ballistics, and rocketry should have a statement that most Americans do not understand the math behind this science. How many people really understand the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. And, finally, the Bible, as read by fundamentalists, also contradicts Copernicus and all modern physics and astronomy. Should we add this to all physics and astronomy-related articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

SLR, you are blurring the distinction between two related thing:
  1. whether people understand what the Theory of Evolution says; and,
  2. whether people agree with what it says
I understand the flat earth theory (as do you, I presume), but I disagree with it.
You and I understand the theory that blacks are inherently stupider than whites but I for one disagree with this theory - as I presume you also do
Understanding and agreement are distinct - even if they are as closely related as two sides of a coin.
Probably less than 1 in 100 people could calculate the escape velocity of a spacecraft headed for the moon, but almost everyone agrees that America landed a man on it (and brought him back safely). This is another example of not fully understanding something, but trusting it anyway.
With evolution, it's more complicated because the refusal to believe in it at all (Creationism) is unrelated to understanding it or not; and because whether those who accept "gradual development" differ over whether it happened naturally (15%) or due to divine guidance (37%). In fact, there's even a conflict over whether "guided evolution" implies acceptance of the Theory of Evolution or a rejection of it. Perhaps Duncharris could shed some light on this. Uncle Ed 13:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Ed, I don't dispute what you say. I was just pointing out that creationists are inconsistent in their acts (well, so it seems to me) and I know for a fact that at least some (I cannot say all) creationists really do not understand what people mean by evolution, as either fact or theory. I am sure both of us agree that the ideal contributors to this article will be people who have a firm understanding of evolutionary biology and/or physical anthropology, even if they do not agree with the Modern Synthesis. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think specific poll data should be included in "any and all relevant articles". There are simply too many articles which could plausibly fit under that category, and there is no reason that the Gallup data is any more privileged than any other piece of detailed information which could go into this topic. This article should restrict itself to speaking about the controversies in regards to evolution in the most general sense, in the same way it restricts itself in the most general sense to the historical information about it. There are sub-articles clearly labeled for more detailed information. --Fastfission 21:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
See also now Guided evolution — Dunc|☺ 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of PhylogeneticTree.jpg

I contend that this image's thumbnail should be no larger than 250px as an effort to remain friendly to users with small desktops. The user can always still click through. It's not feasible to try to portray all of the information that this image contains on the main page anyway, so it will always have to be clicked through. --Cyde Weys talk 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather have the tree both larger and further down in the article. The choice of the intro image is a tough one. The image of Earth from space? A mutant fly? Scientists at work using knowlege from evolution to guide their research in DNA, RNA, viruses, new medicines? WAS 4.250 21:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • None of those really illustrate "evolution" though. (Earth from space could just as easily be used to illustrate Creationism.) Hmm. Usually evolution is illustrated by sequences or trees showing development. I think the current tree is a little too wide-ranging, though. The sort of image I am thinking of would be something which showed change over time — say, superimposed skulls or footprints or whatever which showed something usually thought of as very small coming from something that was once very big. --Fastfission 22:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care about the image, but anything over 250px for the intro to an article is way too big in my book. It overwhelms the text and for little benefit (anyone who can easily and quickly understand that image and would be interested in the details already knows its contents anyway). --Fastfission 22:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"change over time — say, superimposed skulls or footprints" Sounds like changes in horses, humans, arms, hands ... The similarity in hand bones across a wide and divergent range of life forms is most amazing . WAS 4.250 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The trick would be to find one of those diagrams which is not horribly out of date, yet is free for use. Unfortunately, many of the old diagrams of things like the evolution of the horse are no longer considered very scientifically accurate, as real life is more complex than they let on, and creationists take a lot of joy in pointing out when people use outdated material because it is more comprehensible than modern data. Hmm. It would be real nice to create some sort of nice graphic along these lines. I was once going to do something along these lines by tracing the evolution of the human skull but never got around to it. --Fastfission 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for evolution needs attention

Evidence of evolution needs attention as does the cognate section in this article. TalkOrigins has an extensive, copyrighted discussion. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That site says "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent Version 2.85 Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes. "

There is an issue at wikipedia about copyright. We want to be copyable by for-profit groups, BUT ... I don't have an answer, but the problem is not just Misplaced Pages ... the whole digital revolution is creating a war between those who want to own EVEN EQUATIONS (patent software) and those who wish the commons to be of service. WAS 4.250 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, what is the thing ABOUT? In its own words: "This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated." WAS 4.250 02:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a fancy way of saying it's aimed at creationists. And if you want permission to use the comdesc FAQ, just post a message to talk.origins with a subject like, "Paging Douglas Theobald re: comdesc faq". --Cyde Weys talk 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of evolution

Could someone who's into it clean up this "evidence of evolution" section? It's very choppy; ideally I think we should reorganize it according to a more coherent outline, but at the very least the choppiness (e.g. non-sequiturs like talking about sequence similarity and then jumping to the Miller-Urey experiment) should be fixed. Graft 20:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Misconception section

Err... did we agree on the addition of this misconception section while I wasn't looking? I'm not convinced it's a good idea, and I'd like to at least talk about it if not remove it. This is not the "Evolution FAQ"; this is also not EvoWiki, and this article's job is not to undo Christian evangelism. Graft 04:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A misconception section is not in itself inappropriate, but the FAQ format is. --Rikurzhen 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave ample time for comment so I did it to get some friggin feedback. The goal of the FAQ format was an attempt to keep it short; while this indeed ain't EvoWiki (as already discussed, or at least pointed out by me, above), creationist misconceptions of Evolution are notable (merely placing them in their respective articles implies they aren't notable); and so they do belong in some form in this article. Do with it what you wish, and if I don't like it then I'll discuss it before moving forward, or backward... or sideways for that matter. - RoyBoy 06:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and moved misconceptions to the overview just before the social and religious implications subsection. WAS 4.250 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't EvoWiki under the GFDL just like Misplaced Pages? Let's just take some of their stuff and put it on here. --Cyde Weys talk 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's get another featured article

I know Evolution is already a Featured Article but I think we can do one better and get another evolutionary biology-related article up to Featured Article Status. I have access to all research materials at the University of Maryland (including all notable biological journals), and more importantly, I have the desire to see this through and get it done. I just don't have the subject matter down pat quite yet. I was thinking maybe evolutionary developmental biology. This is still in the planning stages though so I welcome any other suggestions. --Cyde Weys talk 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories: