Talk:Introduction to evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Move template

I obviously disagree strenuously with the tag that has been placed on this article to move this to evolution. This guy is some template happy character it seems. I complained on his talk page but I have obtained no reply.--Filll 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see little to salvage in the article as it now stands.GetAgrippa 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please edit away to your heart's content. Let's make this accurate but still accessible, if possible.--Filll 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needed

  • We need pictures here. Something simple please and not too frightening.
  • I would like to change the blue information box at the top of the article to a vertical blue information box down the right hand side of the article if possible--Filll 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to put

This article is about evolution in biology . For other uses, see Introduction to evolution (disambiguation).

in this article but it did not work properly for some reason.--Filll 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start with the theory?

I have just redone the opening, to start with a brief statement of the theory (largely cut and pasted from an earlier version). I think this is a good idea, even though the essential points are restated in the vertical box at the right. The bullet list can develop into a slightly longer and fuller version, while perhaps the box can be shortened further - two different ways of conveying the essential facts, for people with different ways of absorbing information. Also - I moved the stuff about wings down to join the hands because (a) it is another example of adaptive radiation and (b) I don't think it's a good idea to jump straight into a specific example like that, which perhaps gives too much of an impression that this is all that evolution is about. Maybe now a good idea to delete either the hands or the wings and leave just one example. Snalwibma 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that WAS 4.250 has simply reverted my changes without discussion. OK - some of it is wrong. But what about the principle? I still feel the present opening is quite inadequate, jumping straight into a specific example (which is in effect made redundant lower down the page) without setting out the basic idea. Snalwibma 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article requires complete revision, knee-jerk reversal at this stage are not productive. We almost need to put a disclaimer across the top "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". Try you edits again. This can work if we think in terms of informative, accurate, yet minimize the enormous amount of supporting details that are problematic in the Main article. Perhaps first you could outline the major topics for the article that are relevant to understanding evolution. Then discussion over the outline could follow. Then the actually text can be composed, with readability in mind. Don't throw in the towel .... yet! --Random Replicator 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even the English on this version is stilted, because in Simple Wikipedia we are encouraged to write somewhat stilted English to try to aim for an article which only uses about 850 words of Basic English. However, for Wikipedia itself I think we can at least make sure the English is readable, but still keep it simple with less technical terms.--Filll 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at what Snalwibma had done. I think it was a distinct improvement over this. I think rather than just revert mindlessly, we should edit the material we have here. It needs to grow organically. If some of what was added was not exactly correct, then it needs to be edited, not reverted!!--Filll 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it off my watchlist and let you guys proceed as you see fit. WAS 4.250 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's revert this to Snalwimba's version and let it evolve in a hopefully constructive direction.--Filll 15:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I like to critique more than write.... but would this be a suitable start as an intro? --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Its hard to encapsulate Evolution in a short, readable, intro!!!! So be kind.

In a general way, evolution is described as the changes that have transformed life from its earliest origins into the diverse forms of life represented today. More specifically, the Scientific Theory of Evolution states that all living things share, at some point in their evolutionary history, a common ancestor. Evolution depicts life as a tree, with many branches arising from a single trunk. The tips of the branches represent present day life forms. Each fork in the branch represents ancestors common to all lines arising after the split.


                     Insert Image of Tree Here!!!!


The idea of common ancestry has its roots in the Darwinian Revolution. Charles Darwin, famous for his theory of natural selection, saw unity in life, with all living things related or descending from a common ancestor. Darwin describes these events as “descent with modification”. Darwin based his ideas of common ancestry on the principals of natural selection.

Natural Selection::::::::::::::::::::::::::

All common knowledge, so citations not required. Not familar with the rules and lack the skills to actually edit the article itself ... so this as far as I know to go with it.

Readability score of 46 or 10th grade level. --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Fantastic.--Filll 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

A quick look gave these. I hope there are better ones but this is all i could find for now. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Those look good to me. To brighten it up a bit so it is not to dreary looking.--Filll 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I was hoping we could insert a evolutionary tree after discusion on the branches of life... there is one in the wiki photovault in which the copyright is expired. Link-> [1]

I have no clue how to insert or resize but if someone wants to try to insert it if appropriate. --Random Replicator 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a try. I am not sure it is perfect but it is a start. Someone who is more expert or more patient than me can adjust it, resize it, etc.--Filll 20:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You could try and make it smaller but with the blue box on the right it will be hard to fit it in without everything getting cramped. Another possible location is in the montage, i have placed one in there for you to compare with the one at the top. Obviously this montage needs a good legend to link it with the text. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I like the picture at the top; as someone said "we need to break up the text to reduce the intimidation factor." The lead in sections seems to be coming together nicely. Its a start. I would like to see the next section 'simplify' the tie in between Darwin and modern genetics. Maybe Population genetics could be the next subheading, with a summary of Hardy-Weinberg principles? I think the key here seems to be minimize examples and details and not feel a need to defend or define every sentence/word. Also compact, concise sentences.The section on convergent and co-evolution was in the original transfered entry. It is just hanging there at the moment. Hopefully, it will eventually have a tie in to the section. I also recommend staying away from Creationist / Evolution debate. Refer all challengers to the main page ... they can fight it out there. That said ... should we continue or is this too redundant or perhaps distracting from the main article? I hate to invest the time; only to find the community at large thinks it absurd. --Random Replicator 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
To correlate with the main article, Modern Synthesis might be a better heading than population genetics. I read the main page on M/S and it is Titanic; an excellent section to condense here. Obviously this is a support document so it should perhaps correlate to the main page. --Random Replicator 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am only a mathematical physicist but I think you are doing a fantastic job here. This looks great to me ! Of course, do not take my word for it since in this field, I am sort of out my main area !--Filll 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedent

I don't know if there is any policy on having less technical introductions on subects. Has this been done before? JoshuaZ 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has been done on special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics so far. So if physics can do it, so can biology I think. --Filll 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbered list

What has happened to the numbers in the list of five principles of natural selection? The picture of the tree gets in the way and deletes the numbering of the list. My knowledge of wiki markup and html has been stretched to the limit (doesn't take much of a stretch) trying to restore it. Someone must know how to do it! Snalwibma 08:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now. How does it look now? What browser are you using? --Filll 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no numbers, just the slashes, using MS Explorer with 21" wide screen. --Random Replicator 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Filll ... do you see numbers? --Random Replicator 14:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
WinME, IE6, 19" screen, wikipedia "cologne blue" and default skins - I see dashes for 1-4, then, just below the picture, "5. - Over time ...". Snalwibma 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no skills in this area ... I just figured out how to do an embedded link to another reference ... I'm pretty excited about that thou!--Random Replicator 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see all 5 points easily. We might need an expert here.--Filll 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to list

I fixed a spelling error. I also did not want to use the word evolve to explain evolution in a sort of circular argument.--Filll 14:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll or anyone with skills ... can you set up the following Sub topics directly under the intro section (above the convergent stuff).

Modern Synthesis / Population Genetics

Evidence For Evolution

 Subheadings   Fossil Record
               Comparative Anatomy
               Artificial Selection
               Molecular Biology

General References on Evolution

That can serve as a loose template for information to follow ...

Also, (all) please kep editng for errers and improvemments, at precent there seems to be about 4 of us with at lest some enterest in puting this togethar.--Random Replicator 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. --Random Replicator 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


I've added a link the article of evidence of evolution, but I don't think a main article link is totally appropriate. I think a short intro in the evidence section would be nice, instead of just diving into the fossils section, and this would also be a good spot for the link. GSlicer 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bird Flu

Is anyone attached to the bird flu example... to me it is just hanging there as an after thought. Part of the challenge of reading the "main article is the supporting details that break the flow of the basic information. Examples in this one (perhaps) should be few and only because they are necessary to grasp the concept.?.? --Random Replicator 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff like the bird flu example come from the Simple article. Anything that makes no sense, remove it.--Filll 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted it. Still needs a closure sentence, I hate to end the intro passage with a list. --Random Replicator 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Populatin Genetics

Six Coronas for the head, Vikiden for the back ... Aerosmith blaring Honkin Your Bobo ... and I came out with a readability score of 44.2 10th grade level. Feel free to edit without apologies or comment. Filll don't abandon me brother .... if this section is too complicated we can fix it. You may be high .. You may be low ... You may be rich child ... you may be poor ... but when the lord gets ready .... you gotta move.... Refilling the cooler and off to Evidence section.--Random Replicator 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

About an hour later ... and still Honkin the Bobo ... got beer on my keyboard ... but there is no stopping me now ...where is my Brit brother, not out Christmas shopping are you .... Brits don't do christmas do you???? Fossil evidence reads at 11th grade ... crap the beer is having a reverse effect ... its making me smarter. Soon I'll be cranking out a legal document. --Random Replicator 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Random. Another Brit brother here... I'm following along behind you doing a copy-edit! Please revert if I get it wrong, or oversimplify, or confuse the issue (though it might be useful to discuss rather than simply revert). I have just had a go at the final paragraph of the introduction, and the first of the pop gen section. Before I go any further, what do you think? (or what does anyone else think?) I feel the Hardy-Weinberg stuff might benefit from being reduced a bit (e.g. do Hardy and Weinberg need to be mentioned four times? I suspect not). Snalwibma 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit away ... especially the morphology section .... Im up to 12th gradeon that one. --Random Replicator 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Never fear, I am right here keeping an eye on things. The figure now has a caption. You can modify the caption to suit yourelf however.--Filll 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit freely

I am confident in this group, in fact certain that your skills are greater than mine so edit to improve, especially bad grammar, clarity and accuracy. We all seem to be in agreement that simple is better. I seem to be stuggling with that part as we move throught the article. --Random Replicator 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried moving the figure of the skeletal structures. It did not turn out as well as I would like. I tried to break the figure up but I was not able to yet. Comments?--Filll 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Put it back at the bottom... perhaps we can find a picture of the forelimbs of whales humans etc....

We could also use an picture of some varaitions in domestic animals something that is strikely different yet same species ... maybe some weird looking chickens are something. I really like our pictures ... they are important as evident from our school textbooks. People are turned off by long passages of text.--Random Replicator 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Snalwibma signing off for today... I have done a quick copy-edit on most of the existing text. I hope I haven't mangled anything too badly. I'll revisit tomorrow. I think my best role is definitely to edit what others have written, reather than to originate text. BTW - I still can't see the numbers of the first list of five, which is annoying. Strangely, using IE7 I can see them, through the tree picture, but in IE6 they are quite invisible. There just has to be a solution! Snalwibma 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Molecular evidence up for review. I think we should cite the last statement but not a clue how to do that. Here is the info for it. --Random Replicator 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 Monica Uddin, Derek E. Wildman, Guozhen Liu, Wenbo Xu, Robert M. Johnson, Patrick R. Hof, Gregory Kapatos, Lawrence I. Grossman,
 and Morris Goodman  Sister grouping of chimpanzees and humans as revealed by genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of brain gene expression 
 profiles  PNAS 2004 101: 2957-2962; published online before print as 10.1073/pnas.0308725100
Geez mister ...This is a nice rewrite .... way better than what I had. --Random Replicator 22:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin’s theory of natural selection laid the groundwork for evolutionary theory. However, it was the emergence of the field of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), that provided the missing information on how it works in practice. This combination of Darwin's theory and our current understanding of heredity led to the birth of population genetics.

I'm done for the night ... Like the way you did the pictures Filll; excellent formating. I hope the POV's stay on the main page and don't force us to expand in an effort to defend every other word. At least for now I'm liking the way it reads. --Random Replicator 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular biology

I think the first paragraph in this section needs a bit of attention. I was going to go ahead and do it, but then I got cold feet and I thought I'd bounce it around here first. What I have in mind is (1) the text jumps into scary topics like nucleotides and sequencing too suddenly; (2) is this an opportunity to introduce the concepts of genotype and phenotype? I am thinking of something like this:

The field of molecular systematics focuses on the reconstruction of evolutionary relationships based on genetic similarities. Scientists have made great strides in analysing the chemical compounds (sequencing the nucleotides) that make up the genetic code. Since morphology (the phenotype) is an outward expression of that genetic code (the genotype), then an analysis of the genes themselves should provide an even clearer understanding of the relationships between species.

But is this too simple and/or inaccurate? Is my virtual alignment of morphology and phenotype acceptable? Snalwibma 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know but I would always aim for simpler if possible, especially in the introductory paragraph. Remember this is really supposed to be for like 9th graders or something. Maybe even younger and less educated than that. Think about for your grandmother (unless she has a Phd in biology of course).--08:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
duh... what's a ninth-grader? Means nothing to me in Yorkshire. I suppose I could always look it up somewhere! Snalwibma 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A ninth grader is a 14 year old child who is following the regular path in school, and is not particularly precocious. Someone who is excited about Harry Potter books.--Filll 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
ie, in England, a Year 9. Someone not yet starting their GCSEs. Skittle 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It's OK - I looked it up! And I have one of those at home, so I'll try out the text on her. Snalwibma 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's idea

A brilliant insertion, Fillllll! Apart from anything else, it takes the numbered list away from the tree and makes the numbers visible. Snalwibma 08:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A phrase that needs a bit of explaining

Here is the first sentence fragment that is the first stumbling block for me in the article:are random formation of sex cells and fertilization. It needs a bit of simplification and/or explanation.--Filll 10:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go - not great, I fear... At some stage (soon - maybe later today) I want to go through the whole thing myself and look critically at how each point is explained. Ninth-grade here we come! Snalwibma 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another sentence that needs explaining and simplification:However, the bases of such groupings are the ancestral relationships that link them.--Filll 11:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures and text

The images at the bottom illustrate (1) convergent evolution, (2) comparative anatomy (adaptive radiation) in forelimbs, (3) adaptive radiation in wings. The text relating to (1) and the specific mention of (3) have gone. Should they come back? Let's re-insert a bit about convergence and divergence. Is "Evolution in action" the best top-level heading? Or maybe just do this in an extended caption to the pictures. Snalwibma 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Either or both is fine with me. As long as it is simple to understand.--Filll 10:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we try this: Insert the pictures of the bones at bottom following this line in the morphology section: "A similarity in anatomical features as a result of shared ancestry is called homology." That may serve to break up the text some and it seems to tie in.

Convergent evolution can be a separate discussion, perhaps worked in in the morphology section as well. I'm still "chewing" on where at the moment; however contrasting the shark and dolphine is the perfect picture choice.

We could also use an example of the classic picture of mammalian forelimbs if such can be found.--Random Replicator 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the picture be broken apart? The leg bones from the dolphin / shark? --Random Replicator 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the pictures can probably be broken apart. I will try. --Filll 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you add a heading under evidence called "Co-evolution". Below molecular. We also need a New Section that deals with different perspectives on evolution as a whole Gradual vs. Punctuated Species vs. Gene level and of course at least a brief statement linking out to Id and creationism. I hate to title it using the words misconceptions and/or contraversy ... that is just begging for a fight. If you can think of something tactiful.--Random Replicator 15:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Break time for me .... hope you got my message on picture formating ... it was perfect when you embedded the mosiac in the morphology section. --Random Replicator 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the new sections there. They might need to have the titles changed slightly and moved. The pictures might need to be resized and moved slightly but they are a start. I can still try breaking them apart if you think it is worth trying.--Filll 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of other pictures that can be added at vestigial structure if you want.--Filll 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal for simplification

We definitely need to simplify a lot of what is there.--Filll 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


True because once we walk away ... it will gradually morph into something more complex. But as inspiration consider this section from the main page:

Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to sampling variance. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation. Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies will tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency. Thus, fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population due to chance alone. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequencies therefore might drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles present in one population could be absent in the other, or vice versa).


There is purpose in our maddness!!!

I will attack the new sections this afternoon. What do you think of a box with maybe 10 or so recommended readings. And a box dedicated to related topics within wikipedia?

Maybe we can drop the citation at the bottom on the gene comparisons humans vs. chimps. On grounds of Common knowledge. I would like all our references to be easily understood. The main article on evolution has a massed a huge number of super technical references at the bottom. We don't want to go there with this one. Evolution for dumbies!!! Right?

Also, Im paying minimal attention to bad grammar and spelling figuring you guys will correct my weirdness ... it saves me time not to agonize over every word ... especially since i type with two fingers!!!! I have scarificed pride for efficiency if thats ok. --Random Replicator 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will work on the grammar and wording as best I can but I am no expert of course. I do think that a box like you suggest would be nice. Something really basic. I think that a person reading our section on genetic drift etc would have a lot better chance at being able to tackle the corresponding section in the main article.--Filll 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big space with no pictures

From Darwin's idea to Noah's flood, we have no pictures. We could use some however.--Filll 17:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Under Darwin's idea .... a picture of Darwin .... but not he same demonically possessed one they have on the main page please!--Random Replicator 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

lol .... beautiful --Random Replicator 17:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He produced the theory as a young man, so lets have a picture of him as a young man. Also Mendel is listed. Would it help to list the fact that Mendel was actually a monk? I am not sure about the picture of fertilization or the mice hanging out under the log. Any more pictures you would like?--Filll 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What sort of picture of DNA should we have? I found this animated one but I am not sure that it might be too slow loading and complicated--Filll

I loved it .... loaded fine for me. --Random Replicator 18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the mice? the shark and dolphin picture? Cuvier? Should we have watson and crick? Should we describe mendel as a monk?--Filll 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


The pigeons are the reult of selective breeding, Darwin actually based much of his work "Origins" on his study of domestic breeds of pigeons, to my knowledge finches didn't even make it in the book --- just pigeons. Hence the pigeon choice ... plus it was colorful and pretty! Thus if we keep it it was meant to be in the artificle selection section.--Random Replicator 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For convergent evolution the shark and dolphin pictures need to be side by side for contrast. --Random Replicator 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We might need more of an expert to do this. I tried a little.--Filll 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Dobzhansky blue ... is because I copy/pasted his name? --Random Replicator 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why. I wanted to find a younger picture of him but the one we have here on Wikipedia looks so old.--Filll 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuvier is a dapper dandy indeed. a definite keeper. The goose bumps, good example... as a picture not sure if it is working for me because its not apparent what it is except in the enlarged version, and everyone knows what goose bumps are so its not all that informative informative --Random Replicator 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps are gone. I tried to put the dolphin and shark together but we might need an expert to help us do a better job.--Filll 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll ... I was trying to show how the theory of evolution is not dogmatic; without open the door for controversy ... did i even come close? Also wanted to introducr two major modern players Gould and Dawkins. But it may need lots of editing or if you think deletion. Had no clue how to do quotes. if you need information so we cite properly ... I'll do the foot (finger) work. --Random Replicator 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. You will not be able to avoid controversy no matter what you do, I am afraid. I am not sure the quotes look so good but I tried. I do not like the standard quote format on Wikipedia so I do my own version. I wish I had pictures of Gould and Dawkins when they were younger. Should we just go with older pictures?--Filll 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


A picture of Hutton, Dawkins and Gould? Not the one with his mouth hanging open ... he looks stupid there. PS read your comment on th other discussion page ... wow ... went straight for the juggular didn't you! --Random Replicator 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We can go for pictures of course. I was looking at them. Which comment was bad? The regular evolution page or the evolution and creationism controversy page? I sometimes take the gloves off. I hope I do not hurt too many feelings.--Filll 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Create one more section "speciation" the most challenging to simplify Just below coevolution ... a complete separate section.... I'm using my lecture notes ... I guess im wondering if we need to go into all the different routes ... sympatric allopatric ... ect.. ALSO ... when do we get too long as an overall entry? I'm working on co-evolution now. --Random Replicator 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speciation exists now.
Well I will rely on you biological experts to decide when. This is not my own field. I just think it should be as simple as possible and reasonable.--~~

WOW you bolded the quote .... and i thought you were diplomatic?!!!!--Random Replicator 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I call a spade a spade. I get tired of creationists sometimes.--Filll 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

Ok I replaced his picture with a smiling picture. I hope that looks better. I wish I had one when he was younger. But the older picture will have to do until maybe a younger one shows up.--Filll 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Down

I'm Down here now. Go with the old versions. Just not the one where DAwkins is hanging over the podium with his mouth open. AND the discussion where you slamed the intro for Evolution as being over the top. You even bulleted them 1) 2) 3) You hurt my feelings and I didn't even write it ...  :) --Random Replicator 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What old versions should we go with? I might have the wrong Dawkins picture. Oh I am sorry. I will change it. I think that biologists are smart and doing really great stuff. But they have to not be so elitist. Especially on such a very important subject like evolution in an encyclopedia article for the general public. I can remember reading the Selfish Gene as an undergraduate and being really excited that I thought I was starting to understand what was going on in biology. A biologist soon put me in my place and told me how stupid I was and how stupid the book the Selfish Gene was and how stupid Richard Dawkins was and how he was not really a biologist and how he had made no contribution whatsoever and how I was a moron for even reading it and being impressed. It really made me feel sort of sheepish and embarassed. I am not STUPID. I do have a PhD in mathematical physics from a major school and 3 masters in mathematics and physics. But biologists often look down their noses at people like me since we are not in their field and they can be pretty contemptuous. And when they do something that overlaps with my area of expertise, they usually do complete garbage and make the dumbest mistakes, but are very dismissive of me and the stuff from my area of expertise, as though it were of no value. Stuff like MRIs and all kinds of other technology that biologists use all the time they just take for granted and assume it is all nonsense done by morons who are too technical to be of any value. How many times I have heard, "We biologists are really smart because we can think since we biologists have not clogged our heads with all kinds of worthless technical material like mathematics and physics". Ugh. It makes me shudder. However, this kind of attitude is quite prevalent I know since I have encountered it so often, and it does not serve biologists well frankly. Just my two cents. But I have TREMENDOUS respect for evolutionary biologists since I think it is one of the biggest theories and most important theories that humans have produced ever in the history of science. We have not even begun to scratch the surface of the this area, I suspect.--Filll 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Touched a nerve did I! Well I'm no threat here ... they dismissed me in the evolution discussions as soon as I mentioned I was a mere Biology teacher. I don't claim to be a science guru, but I certainly know that the main article on evolution is way to titanic and cumbersome to be an effective encylopedic source of info. I would say that some of them are caught up in their own ego's but they would be rude I guess.

I would agree completely. It has to be useful for the average person, at least the average person with a bachelors degree in science. The present article is even a stretch for me, and that is a bit much to ask a 15 year old child or their parent to be able to absorb. At least in my opinion. That is why this article is so important.--Filll 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But anyway ....Could you remake Speciation as a separate heading ... not a subheading for evidence. Also and ant and acacia picture; maybe there is one where the ant is on one of the thorns. I'm going to hold off on writing the speciation section ... I need to recruit some help from my co-workers to decide how much is too much. Our librain from school sent me a list of recommended text on evolution for high school libraries. I going to do some background checks then post the info for you to format. I am disappointed that no one really responded to my request on the main page; actually very disappointed. Oh well --Random Replicator 01:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will see if I can find any more pictures. Do not worry we might very well be able to recruit some people yet. I will make a few more appeals and do some begging.--Filll 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a bit confused...

As a long time watcher of the Evolution talk page, I was under the impression that the modern synthesis rejected any and all notions of microevolution, and that most people who comment on creatonism say that it is just a dishonest attempt by creationists like myself to distinguish evolution that we see from evolution that the modern synthesis proposes resulted in all of life on earth as we know it. I thought that people didn't even like to use the words "microevolution" and "macroevolution", since it was proposed that all evolution more or less results in the same end anyway, have I been reading this wrong the whole time? Homestarmy 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider from physics, I have to agree I also had this impression. I will have to defer on this to a real biologist I am afraid. I am just helping here.--Filll 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Only 12 hours into a brand new article .... re-read please ... is problem solved? Remember this is a simple introduction. Long verbous explanations should be avoided; however ,,, we do wish to be acurate. thanks --Random Replicator 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
But the thing is, I was under the impression the term "microevolution" is never used to describe anything concerning evolution, simple or not. Homestarmy 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit more complicated than that and unfortunately many supporterts of evolution don't understand the actual history and usage of the terms. To make matters worse, not all biologists use the terms the same way (although they generally make clear how they are defining it in context). For example, the term has been sometimes used to be mean morphological changes large enough to show up in the fossil record. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html gives an ok description of the relevant issues. JoshuaZ 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So they are actually still used, just in ways that are often different, and I presume never the same as the creationist uses? Homestarmy 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Roughly speaking yes. (The creationist use them so many different ways it is possible that there is some overlap). JoshuaZ 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Joshua, plez critique this entry and determine if the usage of the term is accurate; if not suggestions for improvment would be appreciated.--Random Replicator 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General References

Sorry about this: Hopefully inserting this in a general reference section will not be as challenging and time consuming as I think it is:

Some starter references for the average reader ... I shall show my bias by listig these! Maybe it will encourage others to add!

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: The blind watchmaker : why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design / Richard Dawkins ; with a new introduction. Published/Created: New York : Norton, 1996. ISBN: 0393315703

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: Climbing mount improbable / Richard Dawkins ; original drawings by Lalla Ward. Edition Information: 1st American ed. Published/Created: New York : Norton, 1996. ISBN: 0393039307

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: River out of eden : a Darwinian view of life / Richard Dawkins ; illustrations by Lalla Ward. Published/Created: New York, NY : Basic Books, c1995. ISBN: 0465016065

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: The selfish gene / Richard Dawkins. Edition Information: 30th anniversary ed. Published/Created: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN: 9780199291144


Personal Name: Gould, Stephen Jay.

Main Title: The panda’s thumb : more reflections in natural history / Stephen Jay Gould. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : Norton, c1980. ISBN: 0393013804


Personal Name: Gould, Stephen Jay.

Main Title: Dinosaur in a haystack : reflections in natural history / Stephen Jay Gould. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : Harmony Books, c1995. ISBN: 0517703939


Personal Name: Mayr, Ernst, 1904-

Main Title: What evolution is / Ernst Mayr. Published/Created: New York : Basic Books, c2001. ISBN: 0465044255 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I hacked together a crude list. The formatting needs work, but at least it is a start.--Filll 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Now formatted, up to a point. Maybe we need more non-Dawkins references (and possibly fewer by Dawkins)! Snalwibma 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review of progress

It is superb! Only three days after the page was first created, we have an intelligent, well-organized and very readable page giving the basic facts and providing useful links to other wikipedia articles for further information. Particular thanks to Filll and Random Replicator. It's not finished, but it's already really good. Just a couple of thoughts, hopes, etc.

  1. I hope it doesn't grow and grow, and suffer from the sort of fact-stuffing that affects (infects?) so many otherwise excellent wikipedia articles. This is one article that really needs to be kept short and straightforward.
  2. I still have trouble with the numbered list beside the picture! I will ask elsewhere and see if I can come up with a solution.
  3. Very small thing - the juxtaposition of trout (formerly bass) in a pond and the gene pool... So does it mean that the pond that the fish are swimming in is their gene pool? Would an example that doesn't involve a pond be better? (!)

Snalwibma 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I also wonder about:
  • a link or two to tutorials on genetics
  • some elementary description of what is DNA, a nucleotide, a chromosome, a gene and similar concepts, which just confuse outsiders
  • I sort of like the idea of highlighting the title "Nothing in biology makes sense..." but I will go along with the consensus.--Filll 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
my view on the "boldness of the statement" ... I like the in your face approach ... yet one of my criticism of the main article is the way it baits creationist into debate. So no vote either way here. --Random Replicator 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Format

Great job with formating ... the scientist on the side ... very professional. --Random Replicator 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very grateful to have the assistance of these experts here. Obviously my skills on formatting figures still has a way to go yet! But I am watching what these guys are doing so I can learn to do it too!--Filll 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I managed to get the shark picture side-by-side with the picture of the dolphin, as someone wanted. Is that better than one above the other? Opinions?--Filll 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to even simpler article

So what is your opinion about putting a link to the Simple Wikipedia article from this one, for those with even less facility with English, or who require an even more basic simplistic explanation?--Filll 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of wikipedia policy, but I'm not too keen on an explicit link within the article itself. How about including a simple (pun intended) simple:Evolution tag and leaving it at that? Snalwibma 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I have the wrong terminology. That is what I mean of course.--Filll 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
simple
Evolution
Simple Wikipedia article on Evolution

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I say yes ... that was the basis of this article inception, to expand understanding to a wider audience. Link it and make in prominent.--Random Replicator 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Species

I've researched speciation and found as many different definitions for the word species as biology books in existence. Struggling with simplification on this one ... I used Mayr's but is so long... hate to free-lance my own thou. --Random Replicator 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had a nibble at it, and I have changed the title of the section, to "The concept of the species". But maybe your original title is better. On reflection, I realise I have lost sight of what this section is here for, and where it's headed! One day I must step back and take a look at the whole of the article! Snalwibma 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am struggling with this one, over simplification and the creationist swoop down like vultures on a dead carcass --Random Replicator 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Speciation up but really needs a lot of work. --Random Replicator 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Section

I was thinking ... one final section under our watch ... dealing with misconceptions . Not the creation vs. evolution debate, but addressing issues such as use and disuse. The idea that evolution leads to perfection or being goal driving. The misconception denoted by the ladder perspective ... chimps into humans; humans at the top of the dung heap. What's good today may suck tomorrow ... i.e. extinction is the norm. I don't even know what to title it.

Also, it is getting long. We will assume others may wish to add to its contents in time so maybe we should stop here; unless their is some pressing issue we missed to assist the average reader in understanding the general concepts of evolution. The reference list is a bit slanted, I'm still working on some text for that; but I was hoping others would contribute so it would truly be non-biased. Go Dawkins. If I don't see something soon, I am adding the God Delusion!!!

I was hoping we would have generated some excitement from those that contribute to the main article. I guess we just have to be grateful they even gave us a link.

One of my high school Biology classes reviewed it and were most impressed ... bunch of suck-ups no doubt. I had them first read the main article's definition of genetic drift then asked for a general explanation .... I got blank stares ... da? I think this gave them an appreciation of our efforts here.

We may wish to archieve this discussion page at some point. It has served more as an message board for editing with many tongue in cheek comments ... mostly mine. We shall provide them with a blank slate, a tabla rasa for intellectual debate untainted by our start up commentaries, which most wouldn't understand what we were saying anyway.

In the scheme of intellectual endeavors, I accept that this is small fish; however, I am very proud to be a part of it and have had the opportunity to work with such talented and insightful souls. In the real world, I have no doubt we would have made for good friends.--Random Replicator 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Picture

What do you think the Doberman is thinking in that picture? Im guessing lunch. Speaking of pictures. The species section offers a lot of options. Fireflies, some type of diagram on adaptive radiation ...geez ... maybe a discussion on adaptive radiation ... as the beer comercials go ... "know when to say when" ... Engineering an Empire / China is on the history channel ... I am off to expand my horizens ... cheers! --Random Replicator 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS nice job cleaning up my mess in the species section!--Random Replicator 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap ... I missing the show ... but ... I don't entirely agree with the edit on "other perspectives". I still think we need to link out to the ID movement in some manner. A common topic in high school is the evolution - creationism - ID debate. Can we give our reader a portal to good Wiki references for all? --Random Replicator 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think we should put that in there. I do not know what to call that section.--Filll 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Most or all the quotations in this article are only casually cited with an author or book name. For instance, the sentence "Darwin described these events as descent with modification" provides the reader with no proof that Darwin actually said this. Maybe some more formal citations are in order, if anybody is willing to find/verify the sources? I realize that this is only the introduction version of the evolution article. However, the article will appear more credible and be in less danger of deletion (if it even is still in danger at its current size) if it holds the dignity of full documentation. One of the last things a blossoming article needs is for somebody to smack a big banner at the top that condemns its lack of cited sources. --Barnaclese 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just the very earliest rough draft of this. It needs to be fleshed out a lot more of course. Please give us a hand and help out if you can. You are quite right about the citations of course.--Filll 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This article does not need loads of citations to back up every point. Please let's not let it get bogged down in the mire. It is an introduction for ninth grade, not a postgraduate-level dissertation. The emphasis is (and must remain) on accessibility and ease of reading. A text peppered with references looks offputting, and is harder to read. Perhaps best dispense with all that, and just preface the "Further reading" section with a note that full references can be found in the main Evolution article. I see absoultely nothing wrong with saying casually that "Darwin described this as descent with modification" and leaving the reader to go find the quote for him/herself. The "dignity of full documentation" is a two-edged sword. Snalwibma 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Birds have wings which are used for flight (Audubon, 1882). This factoid is now in the realm of common knowledge. Not to discredit this article, but within the field of Evolution every line in the article is common knowledge. Trust me … from my head to this page … defines common knowledge. We avoided the specific examples of studies to justify each line in an effort to increase readability and understanding. If you feel we can increase credibility by shot-gunning this thing with references, it can be done. But, other than the reference to gene relationship between chimps, humans and gorillas … I fail to see reason. --Random Replicator 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have said, "full documentation". I'm not talking about facts. Mainly I'm calling for quotes to be referenced to a page number, or at least a book. It doesn't affect readability much to put a footnote number at the end of a quote. It certainly looks better than the alternative: "Darwin described this as descent with modification."[citation needed] --Barnaclese 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well give us a hand then! --Filll 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing links

I mean missing links in the "argument" of the article! A few things that I think could be given a bit of space:

  • Survival of the fittest (Herbert Spencer) – maybe worth adding a little bit after the five points from Darwin, to explain that "survival of the fittest" is a metaphor for natural selection, and to define fitness.
  • Heredity is particulate rather than blending (Mendel’s “atomic theory”) - I have added a bit on this, and given Mendel his own heading. Not sure if the heading's such a good idea. And perhaps the text needs a bit more expansion, to explain it better.
  • A bit more on genes and how they work? Where does genetic variation come from? half the genes from each parent, dominant and recessive characters, mutations, etc.
  • Some sort of summary. Maybe a series of FAQs? Is evolution a form of progress towards the ultimate "perfect" organism? Are humans at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree? Why are there so many different kinds of beetles? Maybe not such a good idea - an invitation to the creationists!

Snalwibma 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is getting pretty long. I would suggest an "introduction to genetics" article for the genetics part and a link. I did include a very short summary and a short note about the common phrase "survival of the fittest". I am not sure about an FAQ. I suggest that a separate article for both evolution and introduction to evolution and maybe even even the evolution-creationism controversy article that is in FAQ format might be appropriate. Some of these I put in the misconceptions section. The problem with the FAQ section is that it can get very very long. It is also as you say, an invitation to creationists to create literally hundreds of questions.--Filll 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconceptions section

I addressed some of the most common misconceptions I have heard in this section. It might be poorly written and it might be too long. What do you think?--Filll 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

Not sure how accurate this is. I wanted to write something short and sweet. It is my understanding of evolution as an outsider.--Filll 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we want to be careful here, and in the misconceptions section, of straying too far from the WP:NPOV policy. It's beginning to look a little too much like a plea for a belief in evolution rather than a statement of the facts of evolution. Maybe better (more in accord with wiki policy, but also more confident and less open to counter-"argument") just to state the facts and not give too many hostages to creationist fortune. Snalwibma 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Which points would you remove or reword? --Filll 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on the second-last "misconception". Text reads It is sometimes claimed that once a new "more advanced" species has evolved from a "lower" life form, the lower life form should no longer exist. Since lower life forms are observed, evolution must be false. Some state that these lower life forms should have evolved into something more advanced, and since they have not, evolution is not correct. These statements are wrong, and are the result of a misunderstanding of what evolution is. I'm not convinced that this needs to be included at all. You have already said at the top of the list that evolution does not mean advancement. In the light of that, this later point looks redundant. Maybe it's tying itself up in knots too much. Is it a "misconception" that really needs to be countered? I'd be inclined to delete it, and add something in (perhaps nearer the top of the list) about humans not being the pinnacle, and that evolution is an ongoing process which has not "led up to" us but is leading nowhere in particular. Snalwibma 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK fair enough. Whatever you guys think is best is fine with me. --Filll 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean humans aren't at the top of the dung heap? There are so many concepts that need to be addressed. Extinction. The fact evolution is not goal driven. Mutations are random / but not evolution. etc... Where do we stop. Alas, but we must ... are we will fall prey to our on criticisms. For those topics force you into deeper and deeper explanations.
On the issue of citations, brought up in previous post. Descent with Modification "Origins of Species" Chapter Six ...no clue what page because I was reading the electronic vesion. Should we follow through with citations footnoted then listed at the bottom as suggested. If so, what needs to be cited? I'll do the foot work. --Random Replicator 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

oh my ... maybe this one "In excess of 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support the theory of evolution." Numbers always need to be cited. --Random Replicator 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I know where that is from. It is really 99.84% i think. I was fudging it a bit. Sorry you caught me cheating by 0.06% !!! Do you want that reference ? it is from a survey of about 500,000 professional earth scientists and biologists. It should not be too hard to find. Or to find a better reference.--Filll 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics addition

I put a couple of notes and an outside link in to some genetic information. Again, I am not sure how useful or accurate these are.--Filll 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We may be there?

I hate to say enough, because I have enjoyed contributing. However, we may be there. The misconceptions read very well. We have opened a portal to pursue the controversy and still managed not to be "in your face" with the views. Excellent summary. Other than finding a more diverse selection of books on the topic and perhaps a list of web links, I say pop the champagne. I'm bowing out for the "experts" to morph it to perfection. --Random Replicator 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks fairly good to my untrained eyes. But we have not had many people check it out yet so I do not know what other reactions will be. I suspect some other topics might benefit from introductory articles. --Filll 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you want to do a bit more that might help

Come to Introduction to genetics and take a look. I cut and pasted some from this article. There is complaining at genetics and gene that they have an article that is too complicated and needs a simpler introduction etc. Same as at evolution. So I am trying to push them to try an introductory article as well. --Filll 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ahhhhh no rest for the weary --Random Replicator 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few more text to add as general references.

Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882.

Uniform Title: On the origin of species

Main Title: The illustrated Origin of species / by Charles Darwin ; abridged & introduced by Richard E. Leakey ; consultants, W.F. Bynum, J.A. Barrett. Published/Created: London : Faber and Faber, 1979. ISBN: 0571114776


Personal Name: Berra, Tim M., 1943-

Main Title: Evolution and the myth of creationism : a basic guide to the facts in the evolution debate / Tim M. Berra. Published/Created: Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, c1990. ISBN: 0804715483 (alk. paper)


Personal Name: Ridley, Matt.

Main Title: The red queen : sex and the evolution of human nature / Matt Ridley. Edition Information: 1st Perennial ed. Description: ix, 405 p. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 0060556579


Personal Name: Sagan, Carl, 1934-1996.

Main Title: Shadows of forgotten ancestors : a search for who we are / Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : Random House, c1992. ISBN: 0394534816 :


Personal Name: Gould, Stephen Jay.

Main Title: Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and the nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : W.W. Norton, c1989. ISBN: 0393027058 :

--Random Replicator 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


It is slowly getting fleshed out....--Filll 06:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't like this wording

Natural selection and biological evolution is not a process requiring that lifeforms become more "advanced", more intelligent, or more sophisticated.

from misconception section. Not sure how to reword it but it smells like bad English or something to me.--Filll 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, try this: Evolution, working through natural selection, is not a process requiring that lifeforms become more "advanced", more intelligent, or more sophisticated.

Now - should we add another misconception, something like The "survival of the fittest" does not mean blah blah blah. The phrase is a metaphor for the process of natural selection, and "fittest" in modern biology has a special meaning. It refers to biological fitness, a measure of an an organism's reproductive capability. Not sure (and nor am I sure what to say it doesn't mean!). It is an often-misquoted and misused phrase, and is perhaps worth devoting a bit of space to in the article. On the other hand, it's not a phrase used by modern biologists, and perhaps this isn't the way to deal with it. At present it appears in a footnote to "struggle to survive". Maybe that's the best way to deal with it. It could get a bit too technical, especially as modern biological "fitness" is presumably not what Spencer had in mind when he coined the phrase in 1864! Snalwibma 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok that sentence makes more sense now. I guess I have to ask, how do people misinterpret "fittest"? Whenever I have encountered the phrase "survival of the fittest", it strikes me that it is being used in the proper sense. I cannot remember encountering it when it was being misused.--Filll 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question, Filll. I think that a common perception would be that fitness refers to general physical fitness, i.e. strongest. Might is right. Social Darwinism. "Ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong" (that's a quote - I forget where from). An argument used to justify Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society", Reaganomics, even (at a bit of a stretch) the Holocaust. Also widely used in casual conversation about any sort of competitive social situation. When used in biology (which is rarely) "survival of the fittest" is probably used correctly, but in other contexts it's widely misused, and people think they are quoting Darwin(ism), or applying the principles of evolutionary theory, and furthermore they think that for the strong to devour the weak is therefore right! End of sermon... Probably none of that should go into the article! But maybe we could include a misconception-rebuttal which states what "survival of the fittest" is, and leaves out what it is not. Snalwibma 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As a Dawkin's fan, fittest, is a function of the gene's probability of perpetuation. My students always see it as a tooth and claw battle. Sometimes fit just translates to pretty. When you perceive it at the gene level as opposed to organism, it makes more sense. Happy to see the framework is solid enough that it allows for such discussions as this. I really liked this line someone added: Therefore, evolution is an inevitable result of imperfectly copying, self-replicating machines reproducing over billions of years under the selection pressure of the environment.

Superb summary of the entire process. --Random Replicator 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS good luck on the main page edits (Intro)!

[edit] Nature red in tooth and claw

Is this phrase (from a poem I think) too old fashioned now to include? What do you think?--Filll 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like romantic poetry... did you get that out of a valentine card... just kidding ... I like the idea, why must we assume scientific articles must be devoid of good prose. Work it in!--Random Replicator 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I included it, where I think it is most appropriate. I put it in a footnote so it does not break up the text however.--Filll 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not convinced. Sorry, but I don't think "nature red in tooth and claw" has anything to do with evolution! If it does belong, maybe it would be best to link it footnote-wise to the Darwinian "struggle to survive", alongside "survival of the fittest". Snalwibma 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this phrase you can see that it was adopted by evolutionary biologists. It was written before the publication of Darwin's work. I am torn about it. But it is in a footnote. --Filll 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll accept that! (and eventually, some day, when I have time, I'll look it up...) "Survival of the fittest" also predates Origin of Species, of course. I wonder - are we making a collection of phrases that have been used to describe evolutionary processes and have entered the popular consciousness, and should we have a little section devoted to them? Or do they belong among the misconceptions? Unsure - but it strikes me that to examine phrases and sayings like these is perhaps quite a good way of getting at what evolution almost means, what it doesn't quite mean, and what it does mean. Snalwibma 18:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting approach you propose. Never seen it taught that way. Catch-all phrases that get embedded into the mass conciousness are often misleading. --Random Replicator 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one thing to recommend it. People are familiar with phrases like

  • "survival of the fittest"
  • "natural selection"
  • "theory of evolution"
  • "Nature red in tooth and claw" (well some people know that one anyway)

There might be some others. If you can connect the text with things people already "know" deep in their gut, they will have a much better chance of being accepted. The memes will have already been implanted. Now all we have to do is build upon the existing foundations!--Filll 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes etc to consider:

[A] curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. -- Jacques Monod (1910-1979) _On the Molecular Theory of Evolution_ (1974) (French Biochemist, Nobel Prize Medicine 1965)

Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. -- Francis Crick (British molecular biologist, 1916- ) quoted by Daniel C. Dennett in _Elbow Room_ (1984)


Evolution is a tinkerer. -- Francois Jacob (French biochemist 1920- )"Evolution and Tinkering" (1977)

A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg. -- Samuel Butler _Life and Habit_ (1877)

[Natural Selection] has not vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to be play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the *blind* watchmaker. - Richard Dawkins (English biologist,1941-)in The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." -- Ashley Montague

"People are DNA's way of making more DNA." - Edward O. Wilson, 1975

Q :Why did the chicken cross the road? Evolutionist: Pure chance. Evolutionist: Only the fittest chickens survive crossing the road. Creationist: God created the chicken on the other side of the road. There is no proof it ever was on this side.

Q: Why did the dinosaur cross the road? A: Chickens hadn't evolved yet.--Filll 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if they'll make it into this article, but some of these quotes are definitely going into my PowerPoint for my own lectures! E.O. doesn't leave us a shred of humanity ... my students are still trying to hang on to soul-mates and destiny ... they'll hate me for: "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." - Edward O. Wilson, 1975. lol I'm Ken Ham's worst nightmare in the classroom.--Random Replicator 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One could envision a page on just evolution quotes. I hope these gave you a chuckle at least. --Filll 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More for your consideration

In neurobiology lecture today, the professor mentioned that much of the data we were seeing was culled from studies of leeches. He said, "Now, a lot of you may think leeches are nasty creatures. The people working with these creatures are quite fond of them, however. It is also reported that the leeches often become attached to the researchers."

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin

Life is a sexually transmitted disease

Thesaurus: ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Why did chicken cross the road? Stephen Jay Gould: It is possible that there is a sociobiological explanation for it, but we have been deluged in recent years with sociobiological stories despite the fact that we have little direct evidence about the genetics of behaviour, and we do not know how to obtain it for the specific behaviours that figure most prominently in sociobiological speculation.

I have a hunch that [] the unknown sequences of DNA [will decode into] copyright notices and patent protections. -- Donald E. Knuth

--Filll 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

more still:
  • Evolution is a FACT God is just a theory
  • Christian Fundamentalists Are Proof That Evolution Does Not Exist
  • Lord save me from your followers!
  • The last time religion ran the world, It was called the Dark Ages
  • If you believe you can tell me what to think I believe I can tell you where to go
  • We have the fossils. We win.
  • Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.


Not all appropriate of course.--Filll 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more figures

I put the mule and firefly picture there. Not sure if they add very much but they do make it more colorful.--Filll 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections

Question: is this section even necessary in this introduction? I'm not sure it belongs here. I mean, it is obvious people object to it, but is it really necessary to include in this? It certainly belongs in the main article, but to the person learning about it I don't think it is necessary. Also, ID proponents universally claim it is God who did their ID, so including extraterrestrials in that list is misleading. Titanium Dragon 06:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not sure it is necessary. However, my co-authors thought it should at least be mentioned. There is controversy so to ignore it or at least not give a pointer to where a person can learn more about it is maybe not good. I suspect it might be best to acknowledge that it exists. And it is true that ID proponents in most cases would prefer God as the intelligent designer, but in their text books and court arguments they always bring up extraterrestrials. It is part of their "wedge strategy" to make it more palatable. Of course the Raelians and panspermians etc would favor an extra terrestrial origin or maybe even ID as well. But they are not the ones with the money behind them and the influence.--Filll 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too upset if the section vanished - but on balance I think it should be there. Not to include at least a brief mention of alternative views would arguably be disingenuous. However inaccurate they may be, they are quite widespread, or at least well publicised, and may well be in the reader's mind. Your addition of the reference to the controversy article firmly says "go elsewhere if you want to know more about this sort of nonsense", which is just perfect. I finally cracked and removed the Tennyson quote. Sorry - we can put it back if you like, but I really can't see what it adds, especially at this point in the article. I still wonder whether maybe a secton on "Metaphors for evolution" would be appropriate. Snalwibma 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The article was written with two goals in mind. The first,to provide a somewhat more conprehensible description of the basic concepts behind evolution. I think it does so rather well. Second, to provide a start point or "portal" to other more in-depth issues surrounding the general topic of evolution. It is in this light that we include a mere mention of the alternative views. It would be a weakness indeed if we got wrapped up in elaborating on the creationist / ID perspective. Its just a link for those exploring the controversy ... nothing more. As for the Raelians, two possibilities here; a) it is an effort to etablish that ID's do not claim a specific deity to avoid church/state issues or .... .... (lol) ..... b) thats just brother Filll rubbing their noses in it. Only he knows for sure. But I suspect a little of both! --Random Replicator 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linked overview?

How about linking from the overview template to the applicable sections in the article? Rfrisbietalk 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I do not understand. How is this different than the table of contents? I am not sure what it means and how it would be different. Not saying it would not be useful. I just don't understand it.--Filll 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
My thought exactly. In fact, that template seems to beg the question of why it's there at all. If it's acting just like the TOC, then it's redundant. If not, then it should link to applicable sections. I've never seen a sidebar template that didn't assist navigation. It's very "unwikish" how it stands now. :-) Rfrisbietalk 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know what you mean. You mean our evolution summary infobox. Yes we could link that to sections. That is a good idea. The info box was originally proposed at evolution itself but it didn't look great there, and no one seemed to want it bad enough, so I just grabbed it and used it here. --Filll 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, if I had said what I meant! ;-) Rfrisbietalk 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the Summary Box a summary of the article or a summary of evolution? I am contemplating the prior post on this issue. And what does that bell mean ... and why are people walking into my class ... dang it.--Random Replicator 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I contemplated this for a while. I finally decided that this would be difficult to do. It might even require a rewriting of the article, which I would not encourage. It is not really a summary for the article, or at least not meant to be. It is supposed to be a summary of evolution. I think the goal is to try to present evolution in several different simple ways. Sometimes one presentation will not resonate with a reader but another will. Sometimes by getting the same information in several different forms or different wording, more of it sinks in and nuances become clearer.--Filll 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animated GIF

Could we possibly remove this image ("ADN animation.gif"), or replace the thumbnail with a non-animating version? It's distracting whilst you're trying to read the molecular biology section. GSlicer 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is up to my coauthors. But we would probably consider it.--Filll 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In the world where everyone is ADD, perhaps it should go.I don't feel strongly either way. I like the idea of a DNA picture thou, if we can find a suitable substitute... cut /paste. --Random Replicator 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's a bit distracting, and I'd be very happy to see it replaced by (for example) Image:DNA Overview.png (which seems to be one of the most widely used images in wikipedia!). Snalwibma 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I tried it. Let's see how it goes.--Filll 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Added more links to See Also section. Spent way too much time fighting with the table format. Had it all set, then realized it wasn't balanced. ahhhhh. I liked the gif. file better; my students actually liked it, but there is merit to the distraction aspect.--Random Replicator 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
How linked, within the Wiki world are we... I guess you can't get stats on number of hits per page? --Random Replicator 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question.--Filll 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Creationism?

If one side gets an Intro, why not the other? (I would love to edit alot of this silly notion of the Evolution 'theory' and how alot of has been proven wrong, but I don't want to offend someone's state-religion.) >_> Keero 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course you could write an introduction to creationism (as long as the people at the regular creationism article agreed it was not a fork of course). I have a friend or two that are creationists and would probably be good to recruit to help. I might even help a bit if you wanted.--Filll 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the purpose of this article was that it was needed because it was too hard to introduce people to Evolution in the main Evolution article :/. Homestarmy 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


That is true . It was needed because the main page is unreadable basically.--Filll 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's already been taught in a majority of schools since the 60's , why would it need an intro? (Or someone could dumb down the Evolution page) :P Keero 18:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well in some countries it is illegal to teach it. And many people still do not understand it very well at all. I for example never studied it in school. I also want them to "dumb down" the evolution page but I am not having much success so far.--Filll 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Bleh, I was trying to just do my part in keeping Wiki non-biased, but that'll never happen. No biggie, edit on Comrades! *O_o) Keero 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Well, the problem is it won't stop changing and getting more and more complicated, the Evolutionary synthesis of the 60's isn't the same as it is today. (Back then, it was probably much more easier to dismiss I figure, its waaaay too complicated nowadays, just look at the size of the Talk.origins archive....) Homestarmy 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationists have been trying to "dismiss" evolution for about 150 years. Part of the problem is that they do not understand what it is. They do not understand what science is. They do not understand their own religion or its history. They just get up on their hind legs and start to holler. The arguments they are trying to use now are the same ones used decades or even centuries ago and dismissed then as well.--Filll 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the problem with Science is that it is complex; a person can spend an entire lifetime studying one small component of evolution theory alone. As the body of scientific knowledge gains depth, people in general or intimidated or just turned off by it. Most will latch on to simple ideas as oposed to expending the effort to grasp higher level concepts. Ken Ham has made a living off of quick easily grasped explanations to the origins of life. His explanation for fossils via Noah's Flood is the perfect example. Rain ... creatures die ... covered with mud ... fossils. Of course he is completely wrong; but he achieves his goal of winning converts by keeping his explanations simple. Have you ever tried to explain natural selection to someone who knows nothing about the DNA molecule. IT is difficult if not pointless. I guess my point is; this is an attempt to tone down the scientific jargon, in an effort to reach the average reader. So my question to you Keero, is the article on Creationism so complex that it too needs an introduction? If so... then by all means gather a concensus among the contributors to that page and write one. Or complain about bias writing in an article about evolution that explains evolution. I'll be happy to join Filll in assisting you in the writing of a Creationist intro --Random Replicator 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went to creationism. The first paragraph is great. Then it goes downhill a bit in the next few paragraphs. I think that a case could be made to try to clean up the lead there. If that fails and if the rest of the document is deemed too technical, then an introduction might be in order if the authors there permit it. It does seem to include a lot of detail in the body of the article.--Filll 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] see also

The table looks dumb ... after spending a godly amount of time on it. I don't know how to make two or perhaps three bulleted columns. If anyone with skills can clean up my mess. --Random Replicator 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked pretty good. I was going to congratulate you. I would use the method that evolution used to organize their links instead probably. I had been thinking about it and you beat me to it.--Filll 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just did it, although too lazy to get them in order right now. Hope you like the change. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Now in alphabetical order. Looks good, I think. Snalwibma 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It looks good.--Filll 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 99.9%

The reference to back up this assertion is to an article in which a scientist says this. Was the scientist in charge of the poll? I think better references exist. However, I don't have them at hand. Meanwhile, the source for the 99.9% figure is less than adequate. 74.33.26.71 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

This is quote from a scientist who is a specialist in creationism and evolution issues and has testified repeatedly on this issue as an expert witness. However, I think a separate article documenting the dominance of the evolutionary viewpoint might be called for.--Filll 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Find the error

I'm a little concerned about lies-to-children, upon reading this text. For example, this sort of wording would be deemed unacceptable in the main article on evolution:

The implication from such a find is that modern reptiles and birds arose from a common ancestor.

Obviously, this article hasn't been scrutinised a lot yet. Nevertheless, if we want to avoid accusations of writing from a point of view, we should take a good hard look at the current text. For example:

Cuvier noted that in sedimentary rock each layer was defined by a specific group of fossils.

should surely become something more like

Cuvier noted that in sedimentary rock each layer could be defined by a specific group of fossils.

Also, each of us should be able to find fault with the following quote:

Current species also provide evidence, with the many genetic and anatomical similarities that exist between them, and any vestigial structures they carry. These structures are useless to the current life form that carries them, but were important to species before them.

At the very least, we should acknowledge that this text is still very much a work in progress. -- Ec5618 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely inprogress. We need people to suggest alternatives that are both accessible and reasonably accurate. I am not a biologist, so in a lot of these matters I have to bow to biologists.--Filll 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We laid the foundation, if anyone sees fit to improve on the accuracy, by all means climb aboard. However, it would be in the best interest of the article to remove/modify statements that are misleading as opposed to providing endless explanations as to why it may or may not be accurate. This is a general introduction; it is widely held that birds and reptiles have common ancestory. I guess I assumed that Archeopteryx was a piece of evidence that supported this notion. Certainly it is a widely used example; that implies common ancestory ... If the line read that birds descended from Archeopteryx ... then removal would be required. However, as I stated, just providing a foundation, improve at will ... I actually expected an onslaught of criticism! In fact, am somewhat disappointed at the lack of interest from our peers. --Random Replicator 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I also am somewhat surprised that more people have not commented or been interested in this article. But this might be only temporary. We will have to see what happens in the future. I think we can pat ourselves on the back for having broken the ice here and at least started this process. I hope eventually this article will mature, and the main article will have accessible introductory sections as well. At least it is far more helpful for the average person, and I am proud of that. When there are CDs produced in the future for educational purposes etc, we might even expect this explanation to be included, instead of the advanced regular article. --Filll 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Well Done

I just wanted to say that I realize that this article is a work in progress, but I admire it enormously. Good job. I hope that this particular article doesn't prove to be an evolutionary dead end, so to speak. I hope it remains what it claims to be an "introduction to evolution" that is short and readily comprehensible for nonspecialists. I'm a fairly smart guy with a bit of education, but find some of the technical jargon in the main article to be difficult to digest, for instance. Anyway, again, kudos to the authors.--Ggbroad 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement

I shoved this image in there but it is probably in the wrong place. We could shove cuvier and the fossil picture together too I think.

In 1832, while traveling on the Beagle, naturalist Charles Darwin collected giant fossils in South America. On his return, he was informed in 1837 by Richard Owen that fragments of armor were from the gigantic extinct glyptodons, creatures related to the modern armadillos he had seen living nearby. The similarities between these two unusually scaly mammals and their geographic distribution provided Darwin with a clue that helped him develop his theory of how evolution occurs.
In 1832, while traveling on the Beagle, naturalist Charles Darwin collected giant fossils in South America. On his return, he was informed in 1837 by Richard Owen that fragments of armor were from the gigantic extinct glyptodons, creatures related to the modern armadillos he had seen living nearby. The similarities between these two unusually scaly mammals and their geographic distribution provided Darwin with a clue that helped him develop his theory of how evolution occurs.[1]

--Filll 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Something about the term "child" and "children" does not work for me. It either places too much emphasis on humans in relation to evolution or perhaps worse; implies animals have 'children' which seems too Disney like. I had an image of Bambi for some reason. Was the term "offspring" too complicated? --Random Replicator 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC) oops wrong place.

[edit] New lead section

Well done Silence for a much improved introductory paragraph! I think it's great - but we must be careful not to let it slip into something too technical and complicated. I wonder, for example, whether it's a good idea to introduce the term "natural selection" at this point, or whether this should be left until a bit later - it crops up already under "Darwin's idea", and maybe could be expanded a bit there. Is there a danger of confusing readers by throwing natural selection at them too early. Maybe keep the introduction very simple. Evolution means the change in organisms over generations. Offspring differ from their parents and from each other. Some of these different traits confer advantages, and these offspring will survive better. Populations therefore change and adapt. Don't spring the terminology on the redader just yet. Just a thought, a question, a wondering... Snalwibma 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if we don't introduce natural selection, we can't really explain anything about evolution; common descent makes no sense if you don't already understand natural selection (i.e., that organisms change over time, and that beneficial traits become more common), because common descent without selective change would imply that everything today should be some microorganism or other. "Natural selection" and "common descent" are both about equally technical terms, anyway; and I expect that many times more people who read this page will already be familiar with "natural selection" than will be familiar with "common descent" (I was taught of the former in elementary school, whereas the latter was never mentioned to me in any level of public education). If we don't "spring" at least the extremely basic terminology on people early on, then people won't understand what we're talking about later (i.e., someone might read the intro and not see "natural selection", then skip down to a lower section and be completely confused by what we're talking about when we keep mentioning that). -Silence 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to be specific about "change" in that first sentence. Organisms can change in a lot of ways. For instance, I've changed in the past ten years: I've gotten older, fatter, balder, grumpier. But not because I'm evolving.--Ggbroad 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's why the first sentence says "change over generations", not just "change". Your individual development is not change over generations. -Silence 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my 2 cents: I would suggest an ultra elementary lead, then a slightly more technical introduction section and therefore we do both: easy lead PLUS give them content for later. I know it might not be standard format for WP, but chemistry does it and so does physics. They lead will be very much of a gentle overview, no technical requirements. If they get through that, we hit them with the introduction where they get common descent and natural selection. That way we preserve a very gentle lead, but still give them more content for later if you think that is what they need. I am ambivalent if they need it but I will bow to the experts. This sounds bad to argue violating WP formatting rules with an expert editor and administrator, but I dont mind if we break some rules here: I just want it accessible. Will that hurt the FA status of evolution itself? I am probably suggesting a no-no.--Filll 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The way I view it is, in the professional world, one has summaries and executive summaries and abstracts and introductions etc. One article might have several different styles of "introductory" section, all at different levels, different lengths, for different purposes. So I dont mind if we do that here, as long as it doesnt hurt evolution's FA chances.--Filll 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if we include too many introductions and re-introductions within the same article, we lose all conciseness and simplicity and thus make the overall page a lot less valuable. We will bore or confuse our readers if we reinterate the same information over and over again in lots of different ways, rather than presenting it only once or twice in the most clear and concise way possible.
You correctly point out that some articles, like Chemistry and Physics, have "Introduction" sections, but it must be remembered that those are not introduction articles! Articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics and Introduction to general relativity never include "Introduction"-type sections within them (beyond the least section, anyway), simply because doing so would be redundant; the entire article is supposed to be an introduction.
My recommendation is that we make the first paragraph of Introduction to evolution the sort of "ultra-elementary" thing you're talking about. Explain the basics of evolution in only 1-3 simple sentences, with no new terminology whatsoever introduced (other than "evolution" itself, of course). That will suffice for the sort of absolutely simple thing you seem to be talking about. Then, we can have the next 2-3 paragraphs of the lead section be a slightly more detailed intro, along the lines of the current introduction, which will introduce the most important basic terms involved--common descent, natural selection, trait, population, organism, etc.
This will allow the sort of progressive detail thing you're talking about, but without the sort of excessive and silly "Introductions within introductions" layering that would be involved in adding whole new sections just to further introduce the thing. We risk actually causing more confusion than we solve if we are so verbose and redundant in our attempts to present the topic in an ultra-simple way. We should instead strive to make the entire article simple, concise, and coherent, rather than re-explaining the same thing when it's already perfectly coherent. -Silence 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok well I am willing to provisionally try it. My two other main co-editors might need to say something too. But it is worth a try. It is not like it is set in stone or anything, and we wont hurt anything by trying it. I really have no idea how much traffic this page gets anyway. I would be very curious to know.--Filll 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Something about the term "child" and "children" does not work for me. It either places too much emphasis on humans in relation to evolution or perhaps worse; implies animals have 'children' which seems too Disney like. I had an image of Bambi for some reason. Was the term "offspring" too complicated? --Random Replicator 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt think so. I also am less than thrilled with excessive parenthese in text, but I am willing to see where it leads.--Filll 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand the sense of "ownership" I've accused the author's of the main page of suffering. I do not want to be guilty as well; as it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.... lol .... at least someone cares enough to contribute .., so thanks Silence. I wish there was a way to determine traffic, it might serve as an inspiration to continue to edit or a good reason to turm off the computer and go watch Oprah. Oh well. Silence, unless you are deeply attached to the term child; please consider an alternative. Oh yea, Snalwibma, nice to see you are still out there! --Random Replicator 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We are all still here, and rightly proud of this little article. I would estimate that probably 75% of the contributions at least were due to Random Replicator, and another 20% from Snalwibma. I just provided some cheerleading and formatting really. But I still think it is beautiful, nevertheless. I would put it in my 10 favorite articles I have helped with.--Filll 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would expect it gets a fair amount of traffic. Evolution is one of the most heavily visited pages on the web and the link sits above the lead there. Also for probably 95% of the people using Wikipedia, they will be lost at the evolution article, so they would come here. So I bet we get a lot of traffic. I used Wikipedia very extensively for a few years before I ever considered writing anything in it. I bet for every person writing, there 100 or 1000 reading.--Filll 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I used the terms "child" and "parent" solely for the sake of simplicity. If someone thought that the term "natural selection" was too complicated for us to use in the intro, then I figured we were dealing with an elementary-school education (or at least vocabulary) level, so I tried to use the simplest terms possible and explain all of the ones that weren't as simple. I have no problem with changing the words to more non-basic, academic ones if that's the preference. And if the vocabulary level is higher than I expected, then I can remove some of the parentheses too, like the ones defining words like "trait", "population", and "organism", thus killing two birds with one stone. -Silence 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the newest version, with a very short intro paragraph containing the basic idea, followed by two slightly more complex paragraphs - introducing terms like natural selection, gene, adapt, species, and showing how they come together to form "evolution" - works very well. My objection (not really an objection, just a question) was not that "natural selection" is too complicated or technical, but rather that we are catering for a reader who wants "the basics" on evolution, and we do not want that reader to give up at the second sentence with the thought "all I wanted was a brief explanation of evolution, I didn't want to be confused by all these other concepts." I think there must be a brief take-home message ("evolution means xxx") in the very fist sentence or two, and then a more detailed explanation. I think the present text has it just about right! Snalwibma 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I see silence has already changed some of the terminology back but I would like to chime in and encourage that approach. I think if we raise the bar high, but not too high, then we encourage learning. I agree this should be aimed at schools but I think kids need to realise very early on that understanding terminology is important. As written, i don't think there is anything here that is unapproachable (great credit to the authors). David D. (Talk) 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the lead looks pretty good to me.--Filll 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --Random Replicator 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sentence revision.

Minor consideration:

Current:

In this way, differences accumulate and can eventually lead to major changes in a population of organisms.

Suggested Rewrite:

In this way, differences that accumulate over time can lead to major changes in a population of organisms.

Logic: Eliminate the possible contradiction: the term "can" implies it might while the term "eventually" may be perceived as it will. Also "time" is a good word to squeeze in when discussing evolution.--Random Replicator 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, did a couple of very minor rewordings in intro related to structure (not content), several have worked on that section so feel free to review and edit as you see fit. Have you notice that the most reworked section in a Wiki article is the intro? This one seems to be melding well.--Random Replicator 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the intro is the most important part, since most people by far will only read the intro and go no further. I like what you did above to that sentence.--Filll 15:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I love the way the table of content and the tree line up on my screen. Please make a note Filll, maybe we can keep it that way as future edits occur. I have yet to invest time in formating skills ... my planning period ... here I sit staring at that stack of papers :(--Random Replicator 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replicator, eventually implies an unspecified duration of time, not a certainty. Indeed, the secondary (somewhat archaic) meaning of "eventually" is "a contingent event; something that will only happen if another, uncertain thing happens first". I don't think anyone will interpret it as denoting necessity. "I may go to the movies eventually, or I may not" doesn't sound strange to people, because saying that something is "eventual" doesn't mean that it's certain or definite or required. -Silence 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
True, I guess I was thinking in reference to the 'slang' use of the word. Perhaps indicative of my southern roots. When will you get to it? ... "eventually". Certainly in an unspecified amount of time ... but it will get done. As I said, a minor consideration. What is your take on the over-all intro? I'll quit 'tweaking' it if it works for you. Since you are in the writing mode ... consider squeezing LaMarck and his misconceptions into the article... I would do it but my brain hurts from reading Fillls battle of words on the various discussion pages. --Random Replicator 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that's a "slang" meaning, I think it's just that "eventually", like all words, implies "will happen" rather than "may happen" in any context except one where words like "may" or "can" are actually used. For example, if you ask someone "When will you get to it?" and they respond "Sometime" or "Tomorrow", that doesn't preclude you from saying things like "I may get to it sometime" or "Maybe I'll do it tomorrow". For the same reason, "eventually" only means that something is actually going to happen if nothing in the sentence suggests otherwise. If you asked the question "Is it possible that you're ever going to get to it?" and I respond "Eventually", that doesn't mean that I'll definitely get to it eventually; from context, it is clear that it means that it's possible that I'll get to it eventually, because that's what question is being answered. So "can eventually do" doesn't mean must eventually do. -Silence 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha...I do get into some tussles. And you probably dont know them all. But it helps me to understand what the "other side" is thinking and to sharpen my arguments. I do wonder about the modern suggestion that there are some Lamarckian processes going on. What is the formal word for that? It is probably too advanced for this introductory article.--Filll 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I take that as a no go on the sentence revision :) --Random Replicator 16:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with revising the sentence if it can be made clearer or simpler; I just don't see a benefit to revising it to avoid ambiguity with "eventually" that few, if any, will be confused by. For example, a change like "In this way, differences can accumulate and eventually lead to major changes in a population of organisms." might be better, or even better "In this way, differences can accumulate over time and lead to major changes in a population." I don't like the specific rewrite you suggested only because the "that" makes the sentence structure unnecessarily complex, and we're trying to make the first paragraph of the lead section as simple as possible. -Silence 17:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'In this way, differences can accumulate over time, leading to major changes in a population.' ????--Random Replicator 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Went with this one as you suggest ..... "that" ..... be gone now. As always, change as you see fit. --Random Replicator 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use attack on our images

I went to the place where I obtained them and they are still in those articles. If there was a real fair use challenge, they would not be in any WP articles and they would not be available in the data base. So restored them.--Filll 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Rather excited about the moth pictures since the peppered moth is used in every text book in the country as an example of natural selection. Came from Wiki commons so the the copyright police can keep their clickers off of them. I am not pleased with my formating. The text that follows Hardy Weinberg looks good up to the point that examples a) .... and b)..... drop down and shift to the left. It works for now. --Random Replicator 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow nice moths. Some creationists attack those moth pictures as forgeries. I thought about rearranging them or cementing the two pictures together, but I didnt want to make a mess. They look pretty good.--Filll 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to be too off-topic, but how exactly were those pictures taken originally then? Homestarmy 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? They were taken with a camera of course. --Filll 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean how were they set up and all, and is the Creationist thing about those moths not normally sitting on trees like that during that time of day true and whatnot. Homestarmy

Well that appears to be correct, but it is basically irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Sorry.--Filll 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See Peppered moth evolution for more information. -Silence 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto See Peppered moth evolution for more information. Covers the contoversey in detail. But as Filll points out, there is no reference to Industrial melanism in this article; just serves as an example for gene frequencies. I'm actually more concerned about Haeckel's photograph. We mention the incorrectness of the theory of recapitulation; should we point out that the picture was the one accused of misguiding? I looked for a more accurate depiction of embryology in Wiki commons, but found none. --Random Replicator 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just remove the Haeckel image. It's inaccurate and out of date. -Silence 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Haeckel image. i agree it is inaccurate. Definitely a case of conformation bias for the idea of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. While this might be an interesting historical aspect of evolution a link to that is enough for this article. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism and ID

The article states "Some religious persons and groups object to evolution on religious grounds, and propose Creationism as an alternative view of the origin of the species on earth. A variation of such beliefs called Intelligent design claims that the variety of life forms that is observed on earth is the result of the actions of an outside intelligent agent, such as extraterrestrial intelligent beings or a God or set of gods."

As I understand it creationism is different from ID in that creationism doesn't state any process but that species were created fully in-tact. ID says that evolution did occur but that it was directed and not via natural selection. So I don't know that it is correct that ID is a variation on creationism, but a seperate idea.

Creationists believe in a young universe, but ID proponents do not.

I seem to see them lumped together all the time and I think there it reflects a bias in that a creationist is happy to reject scientific evidence but ID does not. It simply interprets it differently (sure it's unpopular and widely condemned in the scientific community, but it's still different then creationism). Personally I think ID is interesting but darwinistic evolution may be correct or directed evolution may be correct...of course the reason people argue over this is not over the theory but over a battle concerning a theistic vs. atheistic world view.

IMO, theists waste their time making a big deal about it because it's really irrelevant. I find the evidence of cosmology and the nature of consciousness far more compelling in putting forward a theistic argument then the details of evolutionary process. At the same time I find atheists reject any criticism with religious vigor.

Anyway, I want to propose that ID not be characterized as a "variation" of creationism, because if you fairly look at them (even if you think both are a complete joke) you will see they are not the same at all.

A second thing I want to ask about in the "misconceptions" section it says:

"Evolution does not imply any "progress" towards an ultimate goal. In fact, evolution is not goal driven. Organisms are merely the outcome of random mutations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at that time."

I think that evolution does have a goal, it's "goal" is to transmit genetic information between organisms. That's a minor point but I wanted to throw it out there. - AbstractClass 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"As I understand it creationism is different from ID in that creationism doesn't state any process but that species were created fully in-tact." - That's a bit of an overgeneralization. Many forms of creationism do assert processes of various sorts, and many forms of creationism are rather long-term, like progressive creationism.
"ID says that evolution did occur but that it was directed and not via natural selection." - Depends on the form of ID. IDers disagree on which aspects of evolution did and didn't occur (though they all agree that God is the intelligent designer, and they all agree that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed, which are the main two factors necessary to qualify as creationism in general usage). Some IDers, like many creationists, claim that "microevolution" occurs, but not "macroevolution". Others are like theistic evolutionists, in that they accept that evolution occurred, but claim that an intelligence must have guided the process (often on the erroneous basis that only an intelligence could increase a system's order, or generate new information). But since theistic evolution is sometimes considered a form of creationism, that wouldn't make ID non-creationistic, it would just make them a different form of creationism. Specifically, most experts consider ID to be the dominant form of neocreationism, a descendent of Creation Science.
"So I don't know that it is correct that ID is a variation on creationism, but a seperate idea." - All non-ID sources I've ever read on the matter have described ID as a form of creationism; I think it would violate WP:NOR for us to try to relabel ID here.
"Creationists believe in a young universe, but ID proponents do not." - That is quite incorrect. Read the Creationism article. A majority of Creationists believe in an old universe. These are typified by Old Earth creationists.
"I seem to see them lumped together all the time and I think there it reflects a bias in that a creationist is happy to reject scientific evidence but ID does not." - I think you'll find that this is incorrect. I've never read an ID website in my life that didn't reject scientific evidence left and right. IDers, like all sophisticated creationists (see for example Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics site which uses dozens of the same arguments as intelligent design), are very careful to ignore 99% of the scientific evidence, and to fixate on cherry-picked, often misleading outliers as though they were the norm. Intelligent design, indeed, has demonstrated a profound disrespect for the scientific method, and a disregard for scientific evidence; no ID organization sponsors scientific research, no IDers have performed tests or made scientific predictions or explanations, etc. In fact, there seems to be near-unanimous consensus in experts in ID (and U.S. court cases have agreed thus far) that ID is no less religious, and no more scientific, than other forms of creationism. The only real difference is that their rhetoric is scientific; they use "sciencey" words and make fewer references to the Bible to justify their views. But their actual beliefs are for the most part the same as Old-Earth creationists and Creation Scientists, albeit more generalized and abstract.
"Personally I think ID is interesting but darwinistic evolution may be correct or directed evolution may be correct." - Personally, I think ID is interesting too. For the same reason that I think creationism is interesting: it's an interesting theological and religious view. (Specifically, ID has been equated in some cases with the theological argument from design.) It's just not science.
"I think that evolution does have a goal, it's "goal" is to transmit genetic information between organisms." - That is not a goal, because goals imply intent or purpose or desire. It is just as misleading to describe evolution as having a "goal" as it is to describe gravity as having a "goal"; saying that evolution's "goal" is to transmit genetic information between organisms is like saying that gravity's "goal" is to make heavy objects attract lighter ones. That's not a "goal", that's the description of how the process of gravity/evolution works. -Silence 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My responses to AbstractClass:

  1. Some good points about creationism and ID. Yes, they are probably more distinct than the text of the article suggests - but this article is absolutely not the place to get bogged down in the niceties of the distinctions. No doubt it could be written a bit more clearly, so let's have a go. On the other hand, in defence of the existing text, it only says that ID is a variation on "such beliefs", leaving it pretty vague as to precisely which beliefs it's a variation of. In essence, all we need to say in this article is that there are other (religious) interpretations, such as creationism and ID, and provide links to the relevant articles. I suggest a simple change (highlighted here): Some religious persons and groups object to evolution on religious grounds, and propose Creationism as an alternative view of the origin of the species on earth. Another belief system called Intelligent Design claims that the variety of life forms that is observed on earth is the result of the actions of an outside intelligent agent, such as extraterrestrial intelligent beings or a God or set of gods.
  2. I agree with Silence about the goal issue. The text is about right. Note also that it says "ultimate goal" - an important part of the point is that there is no apex, no pinnacle, nothing (humans, for example) at the top of the heap, no point at which you can say "that's it, evolution has now done its work."

Snalwibma 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and ID are not more distinct than the text of the article suggests, because ID is a type of creationism. The problem isn't that the article is conflating two distinct things, but rather that AbstractClass is defining "creationism" too narrowly. He assumes that Young Earth creationism is the only form of creationism, when in fact there are dozens of varieties, including neocreationism, which encompasses ID and similar views. Your proposed change, Snalwibma, is absolutely unacceptable because it explicitly states that ID is not creationism, which would be deceiving and lying to our readers. ID is, according to experts in the area, neocreationism.
Your point is correct in that the article does say "ultimate" goal. Even if one wishes to mischaracterize the occurrence of evolution as goal-based, it is indisputable that there is no "ultimate goal" for evolution. -Silence 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quotes from the Intelligent Design Article in Wikipedia suggesting ID is a form of Creationsim. Our statement is merely a link for additional information; however, our phrasing is 100% supported by that document. --Random Replicator 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda.."

"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene."

"The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.[36] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.

I see no need great need to edit. I don't think we are laying bait for controversey. Not to be apologetic, but, I would prefer if we minimized inflamatory statements. Not seeing one here. Thoughts? --Random Replicator 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We have very little to worry about. We mainly acknowledge the controversy exists, and redirect people to the right place. And ID was determined by US Federal courts to be a form of creationism. And that is good enough for me. --Filll 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - you (Silence, Random, Filllll) are right and I was wrong. On reflection, yes of course ID is (merely) a flavour of creationism. I completely retract my suggestion (but you will note that I floated it as a suggestion here rather than insert it into the article). It sank - and that's fine with me. Must learn to be less accommodating in future... Snalwibma 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you need a mentor. I hear raspor (talk • contribs) has time on his hands. :) David D. (Talk) 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't be too hard on yourself. Your and AbstractClass's confusion was completely understandable; most intelligent design advocates claim that they are not creationists, so it's natural to assume that they're (a) honest and (b) well-informed about their own movement. But all the evidence indicates that ID is a form of creationism, or at the very least an offshoot of creationism with only a few differences from mainstream creationism. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -Silence 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vestigal modification

Prior edit of vestigal, although accurate, forces an expansion of the introduction with excessive detail. Vestigal is discussed later in the document. If need be modifications and improvements can occur there. Seemed simplier to me (and for the reader) to drop the reference to vesitgal in the intro sentence as it is not critical to setting up the following passages. Thus avoiding the need define in such detail. Nothing lost as I can see by simply referring to genetic and anatomical comparisons in a general sort of way. If this makes no sense ... you would need to compare recent edits in "history". If it still makes no sense it is because I am indeed clueless: In fact let me go back agrab the sentence. --Random Replicator 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Before: Current species also provide evidence, with the many genetic and anatomical similarities that exist between them, and any vestigial structures they carry. These structures no longer serve the main function they served in previous generations, although they may still serve a function.


After: In addition, studies involving anatomical and genetic comparisons between present day species serve as evidence for evolution.

Rework or revert as you see fit. --Random Replicator 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another great "quote"

Gilbert and Sullivan put it, 'Darwinian man though well behaved is really but a monkey shaved!' I am wondering about a page of evolution quotes, with some explanatory material as well and historical context so it is just not a list of quotes.--Filll 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speciation

I just read that the species on opposite sides of the great wall of China have diverged because there is a barrier. Comments?--Filll 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section

Not sure it should remain, but it amuses me.--Filll 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Firt day of the new semester --- several things to contemplate. Bees, which I hope to have my students read soon for your feedback and this little addition. I'm not sure. It is amusing and I'm not opposed. I suggest we let it sit awhile and see if it generates any excitment. If it could be moved to below the misconceptions or alternative views section so that it is not in between the heavier material; it might flow better. Creationism followed by tongue in cheek works better for me than Dawkins followed by shaving apes. You crack me up! --Random Replicator 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I moved it to just above the summary. I do not know if in the main body we should mention where these well known one-liners are from or not. But oh well, lets see if anyone notices.--Filll 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did the dinosaur cross the road? A: Chickens hadn't evolved yet. This one and several others you shared in prior discussion? :) --Random Replicator 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. I have put a bunch more on Wikiquote. I have some doozies I found I might use in some of my other articles--Filll 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gould

Our scientist keep disappearing???? Yet they remain on the main entries within Wikipedia. I am not all that up on rights of use; what am I missing here? Is it at Admin -thing where you delete without explanation... sort of omni-potent. --Random Replicator 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well here is what I found out. I went to look at the Theodosius Dobzhansky's picture, and it said that WP did not have permission to use the picture except on that one article, his home article at Theodosius Dobzhansky. Then I did some searching, and there are a few other pictures that exist on the web, with a variety of copyrights to museums etc. I presume that the same is true of our other missing picture to Gould. What we presumably have to do is to sit down and write emails to the copyright holders to give us rights to use the pictures on our website here. I had to do it for a physics article, so I know what the letter has to look like. I guess I should do it for Gould and Theodosius Dobzhansky and clear this up once and for all, if I can. I presume we could get them to release the pictures into the public domain, or at least for our use. At least it is worth a try. So that is where we stand at the moment, at least in my estimation. I wish the guy who has been nuking the pictures had stopped to tell us WHY he was taking them down, because until I looked, I did not know.--Filll 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked on the Gould picture and it is under a copyleft not a copyright, and free to use as long as it is attributed to where it is from, which you will see if you click on his picture. So I replaced it. I will see about T.D.--Filll 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with Dog and pigeon pictures

I think we have a problem with spacing. I tried to fix it without much success. We need an expert and more fiddling I am afraid.--Filll 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing origin of life from misconceptions

I removed

  • Evolution is silent about the process which created life on earth, known as abiogenesis.

from the misconceptions section because:

  • It is wrong. A major hypothesis for the origin of life is that of molecules and protobionts evolved, by natural selection, toward stable, reproducing prokaryotes.
  • It is unclear. "is silent about"; use of abiogenesis instead of "origin of life"

Pcu123456789 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is not part of biological evolution. It might be a major theory, but it is not part of evolution. Evolution is about the ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Ever hear that phrase? This is also an introductory article, and a lot of the changes you made made it hard to understand. If you want a complicated article and more accurate article, go to evolution--Filll 00:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent storm of changes

I have watched in the last day a large number of changes take place. Some I think improved the text. Some made it harder to read. Some did not improve the English. Some I think introduced mistakes. I thought it was best to let them continue and then see what looked best. I might wait for another short while and see if this continues, or if it settles down again, except for maybe what appears to me to be an egregious error or two.--Filll 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The edits were indeed numerous, more than we have seen since its inception; however, I have no objections to Pcu123456789 contributions, they seem to increase both accuracy and readability. In fact, I am glad someone has shown an interest. All minor edits, with one exception which was addressed on the discussion page. A fresh set of eyes is perhaps needed. --Random Replicator 04:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Elmerglues contributions; however, do not share the "spirit" of the project! --Random Replicator 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
How do bees know that a drunk is a repeat offender???? Ummmm ...a question posed by one of my students when I shared your story .... I had not an answer but I refered them to your entry Filll. Not the page to discuss this issue, but I will be getting back with you on the bees with other puzzling questions raised by my students. --Random Replicator 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-evolution

A newly added sentence.

Coevolution may involve symbiosis, where two species live in close association, or an evolutionary arms race, for example.

In the spirit of simplicity, is this too much information? or Can it be incorporated it into the paragraph in a way that it is more clearly "self-defining". The symbiosis "where two species live in close association" seems to work ok. But the "evolutionary arms race" seems to be dangling there. --Random Replicator 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would advocate making it as simple as possible. We have a more advanced article for more advanced ideas.--Filll 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Filll, I am going to drop the sentence, it has merit; yet maybe more info than needed in an intro article and I can think of no way to simplify the arms race without extending the passage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] viable

Could some one add the definition of "viable" as a foot note. It appears in the definition of species... offspring that are viable and fertile. From my encounters as a teacher, its meaning is not always understood. Personally, I would rather leave the term in the text and foot note it than get too wordy with species definition. I would do it myself, but I would likely create formating issues. Thanks--Random Replicator 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked it. You want more? --Filll 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That works, Thanks--Random Replicator 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reformating

A lot of reformating; appreciate the enthusiasm, however, it really looks horrible on my screen. I would be in support of a revert, then perhaps a more systematic approach to the changes. A rather dramatic sequence of format changes without prior discussion. Not sure about the informal writing banner. As an introduction entry it is meant to be a little less uptight. Is the information incorrect? --Random Replicator 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I visited the Guide to better writing. The suggestion are endless on a variety of concerns. If the critic could be more specific to the objections I would be better prepared to make the necessary changes?--Random Replicator 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific Objections:

  1. Huge area of white at top of page due to formatting change; may be a reflection of my 21" wide screen; but if not it needs to be fixed.
  2. Not to keen on the individual module approach to barriers between species. Does not clearly establish that Pre and Post zygotic barriers are the major headings and the others are merely specific examples
  3. The Dawkin's quote gains undue attention in its own special gray box ... is that format required of quotes in Wiki; if not the original format was more aesthetically pleasing.
  4. The see also ... no issues with the format ... but it does make the article "longer" thus more intimidating scroll scroll scroll

Filll ... Snalwibma ... help please!!!!--Random Replicator 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I too see a lot of white space at the top, so it's not just your screen. I've changed the quote format, since I gather (from other comments I've seen in the past) that quote boxes are actually frowned upon in article space. It's certainly not required. Skittle 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, loads of white space. The format worked well before, whichever WP "skin" you chose. Now it's a mess. I propose an instant revert to the old format, then a discussion, if necessary. Snalwibma 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now restored the top-of-page design. A few other changes are maybe OK - I liked the "see also" list in three columns, but perhaps it didn't work on some screens - not so important. I will, however, restore the balance and subordination of headings around "prezygotic barriers" - far too heavy on the headings at present. Snalwibma 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I am not convinced by the need for the "tone" tag that has been inserted below the "An example" heading. This is meant, after all, to be a basic introductory article, and an informal tone seems exactly what is needed. Perhaps 100110100 would like to come here and explain further, with suggestions. Snalwibma 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Followed the suggestion to "discuss the tone on talk page". Open to specifics for improvement; vague criticism offer little assistance. Banner has been removed pending future suggestions. Not too sure about Wiki policy; but banner placement without dialog seems a bit rude to me. Also restored three column format to "see also". Visually compact making for a less intimidating introductory entry. Not an attempt to suggest ownership; however, there is stability and logic to the format and content present. Mass edits to either without discussion are generally discouraged; although input is both encouraged and needed. The numerous edits I made are a reflection of the learning process of making columns.--Random Replicator 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I also disagree whole-heartedly with the claim that the "tone" of the article or any section of the article is unencyclopedic. Someone just shows up, throws a bunch of random changes into the article with no discussion or explanation, and then leaves. I also do not know what was wrong with having the "see also" list in 3 columns, or having a quote in a quote box. These are just sort of nonsense objections. Is there any concrete example that the editors can point to of a serious problem?--Filll 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How was the quote box thing a nonsense objection? Someone wondered why the quote had been put in a quote box, and whether this was required. I, who have watched this article since creation, but haven't wanted to interfere with the more knowledgable as they built the basics, removed the quote box, as I have seen such things specifically described as 'discouraged' in article space, and didn't feel such a change would be controversial. It's not like anyone said 'this article is rubbish because it has a quote box'. People queried and changed the article, as they are supposed to. What's up? :-S Skittle 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Miscommunication ... thank you for reverting to the original. I think he meant "blocked quote" not quote box; since that is the way Filll originally formatted it and the way it is now. Looks perfect. Not to speak on his behalf; but I think he was referring to the edits by 10000001000010000010000 :) --Random Replicator 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Also thank you for your interest, does the overall article pass muster in terms of readablity and clarity?--Random Replicator 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is very nice, I will look at this article more carefully tomorrow. I tried to tweak the first paragraph, but it seems this is well thought through. The only thing would be avoiding the link to population genetics. If we do link to it, then the first sentence "Population genetics is the study of the allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four evolutionary forces" should be simplified here, I tried something like that, but the best approach might be to not link to it at all. At the very least, not a piped link like that. Feel free to ignore if this has been discussed, I didn't look at the issues very carefully. In any case, I LIKE THIS ARTICLE. --Merzul 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginner's review

First of all, I think this is very good, my background is in mathematics, so I know very little about evolution, except what I learned in high-school. Some points after reading this:

  1. The lead is currently a simplified overview of evolution, and so it doesn't do justice to what is covered in this article. I really liked the population genetics section, and I think this article should start in a similar way giving the complicated definition, and promise that it will be explained. The lead can then continue as it is now, or be subtitled "A simple overview" with the lead paragraph instead following more closely what this article is about.
  2. The sections on Darwin and Mendel are very nice, easy to follow, and lead to population genetics in a natural way. I liked that!
  3. Should there perhaps be a forward link to the species section in the Darwin section to indicate the precise definition will be discussed.
    1. What exactly do you mean by "sexual reproduction works by the mixing of separate factors (genes)", perhaps instead "separate", one can use "underlying factors" or what is the meaning of separate here? This could perhaps be explained by expanding what was the previous theory: what does it mean to think that heredity works "by the blending of inherited characters"
  4. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is well-explained,
    1. but just for clarity could the sentence "frequencies of alleles in a population’s gene pool will not change over time unless acted upon by forces other than" be rephrased to avoid a triple negation. The "other than" can easily be missed (or uhm, okay, ignorant and sloppy readers like myself can miss it).
    2. These short footnotes, 4 and 5, could probably be written out in the text.
  5. The example section, again very nice
    1. "For this equilibrium to persist, the following conditions must be met" I'm assuming that with the exception of random mate selection, these conditions map directly into the four evolutionary forces. If this relationship could be more explicit, I think it would be a good thing.
    2. The section ends with this process being called microevolution, whenever you see micro, you wonder what about macro. Here I understand some people think macro is micro and others don't agree, and you consider this outside the scope of this article perhaps, but I don't. I was immediately annoyed by the rude disrespect for symmetry to leave the (what is macroevolution then) completely unanswered.
  6. Evidence for evolution. I like it, minor quibbles:
    1. The Bible reference I don't think is needed, already says the view was supported by current theology.
    2. Comparative anatomy while starting out strong, loses focus near the end: "A common misconception is that organisms re-enact their evolutionary history during fetal development." What is the relationship between this misconception and evidence for evolution? Ah, perhaps the point here is to clarify that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is not the evidence, as some creationist booklets seem to think.
    3. Vestigial structures and convergent evolution perhaps deserve sub-sub-headings?
  7. Artificial selection. The first paragraph should expand what artificial selection means, specifically that it results in certain traits being preferred over others, and so is related to evolution.
  8. Molecular biology. This has been simplified in a way that I don't see this proving evolution very much. I think this needs some substantiation.
  9. (I'm spending too much time on details, skipping to bigger concerns) The species section starts a bit disruptively, it is unclear what it is doing there. I'm not sure where this section should be placed, or perhaps it simply requires a better intro.
  10. I don't like the misconception section. Things like "Evolution is a theory like the theory of gravity" should be made clear by this article presenting as much evidence in an understandable form. I would drop the entire misconception section, putting the useful information in the article, e.g.
    1. That evolution has no goal and no direction can be pointed out at the vestigial structure section.
    2. Many of them can be joined into the next section... which brings us to
  11. Merge the short objection section with the "evolution and culture" into something like "evolution and society", and where is the picture of Darwin as a monkey???????

Ah, well, thank you for reading my ramblings... --Merzul 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merzul you have certainly given us much to consider. This is the first serious critique since the articles inception. I have Spring break in a few days; and I will tackle this list ... it is 2:00 AM ... I can only imagine what damage my edits would do now. No doubt Filll and Snalwimba will be interested in your suggestions as well. It was a very interesting process of constructing this article; I threw words on the screen and they made sense out of them ... I am extremely biased but I thought it came out well. We went with a more flattering picture of Darwin; the one on the main page looks like he is demonically possessed, so we decided to give him a break here! Thanks for the suggestions and the positive comments. --Random Replicator 05:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] compressed text

Seems to be some issues with text formating in introduction at least on my computers; anyone with skills feel free to reformat! --Random Replicator 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have deleted the line <span style="z-index:-1; position:absolute;">, and that seems to have done the trick. Strange... Snalwibma 11:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EIntroduction_to_evolution_8f1a.html"