Talk:Evolution/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive of January to March 2005.

Contents

Why debate here?

This discussion page hardly seems the place to flesh out the above arugments. I wonder why creationists are trying to debate evolution here, and why the evolutionists are engaging them? In an encyclopedia article about evolution, the science around evolution, the processes, the mechanisms , etc should be discussed. There are pages to dicuss creationism and the Creation_vs._evolution_debate and intelligent_design. If creationists want to discuss the difficulties for evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life on Earth, it seems there are better places to do this. The evolution article should be about evolution. --JPotter 18:07, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. But this is Wikipedia. And unfortunately, Darwin and others adopted the wrong term around 1872; the English word "evolution" was already a nasty political term that the church fathers had been using for two hundred years to curse the atheists. So you are right that "the evolution article should be about evolution." But unfortunately 50% of "evolution" in English is about theology--because that is where the word came from. 8)) We may want to minimize the theology on the Evolution page. But half of the discussion on this TalkPage will continue to be about theology instead of biology. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Darwin reluctantly accepted the term "evolution" noting that "evolution" incorrectly described the process he observed. Darwin did not use the word "evolution" in the original edition of The Origin of Species since evolution refers to a gradual transformation from one species to another whereas what is called evolution has two aspects: anagenesis and cladogenesis.
I have no idea where you're getting this information on "evolution" being a theological term. According to the Oxford English Dictionary and the Online Etymology Dictionary, evolution meant the "unrolling of a book" in 1622 and was first used in its modern scientific sense in 1832 by the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. In fact, there's no record of evolution ever being defined in a religious sense in the Oxford English Dictionary. Adraeus 22:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • For example, the creationist Sir Matthew Hale in the 1600s used the term evolution to attack the atheistic atomism of Democritus and his student Epicurus. (Goodrum 2002:212-214). In that attack, Hale summarized the atomist idea that the vibrations and collisions of atoms in the void without divine intervention had formed "Primordial Seeds" (semina) which were the "immediate, primitive, productive Principles of Men, Animals, Birds and Fishes." (Hale 1677:257). According to Hale, the mechanism of the "Primordial Seeds" is an "absurdity" because "it must have potentially at least the whole Systeme of Humane Nature, or at least that Ideal Principle or Configuration thereof, in the evolution whereof the complement and formation of the Humane Nature must consist. . . and all this drawn from a fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms." (Hale 1677:257, 259) (emphasis added).
    • Hale, M. (1677). The Primitive Origination of Mankind, Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature (London).
    • Goodrum, M.R. (2002). Atomism, atheism, and the spontaneous generation of human beings: The debate over a natural origin of the first humans in seventeenth-century Britain. Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2), pp. 207-224. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're ignoring the fact that "evolution" had an entirely different meaning in the 1600s. In 1677, evolution still meant the "unrolling of a book" as it did in 1622. The first time evolution was used in its modern scientific sense was in 1832. Your conclusion is blatantly ridiculous. Adraeus 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, but this article isn't about the vernacular usage of the word evolution, it's about the modern, scientific theory of evolution. An encyclopedic treatment of evolution is how evolution is understood by evolutionists, as stated in the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. (Pists believe in P and they assert P is this, Qists believe in Q and they assert Q is this.) --JPotter 02:04, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but. . . :) Wouldn't NPOV by that rule require a series of statements like the following? <<Evolutionary biologists define evolution as the shift in surviving gene pools over millenia that can result in speciation, such as humans and chimpanzees from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. In contrast, creationists and researchers outside the life sciences define evolution as gradual change similar to the "unrolling of a book.">> What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 17:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We are in danger of an American bias here imho. In the UK evolution really only refers to the modern biological synthesis. Before saying that 50% of a population defines a word in a certain way shouldn't we step back and ask "50% of what population?" 82.43.184.247 18:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RednBlu, It seems that's what's disambiguation pages are for.
  • Sure. But unfortunately Darwin was English, not American. 8(( And Darwin it was who made the mistake in 1872 of importing the British—not American—popular term "evolution" as a label onto his theory. We might hope that the English speaking world by now would adopt the molecular biologists' view of "evolution." But they have not. Even in the UK, "evolution" does not generally refer only to the modern evolutionary synthesis. For example, I cite for you the numerous British journals of sociology, such as the British Journal of Sociology in which even today "evolution" often refers to the point-of-view of sociology and Herbert Spencer which includes organic and inorganic evolution as Spencer wrote in the first books in English with "sociology" in the title. And Spencer used the term "evolution" in his writing long before Darwin adopted the term. And this is no more a disambiguation situation than is the difference in use of the term "capitalism" as between the Marxists and the London School of Economics. Both camps are talking about the same thing, but they have much different things to say about that same subject. The American diatribe against evolution is a misbegotten battle against the view of "evolution" that regularly appears in the British Journal of Sociology. The American anti-evolutionists have been a little slow at learning the modern evolutionary synthesis version of "evolution." 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 10:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Darwin reluctantly accepted the term evolution seeing as it would not be displaced anytime soon. He did not initiate what you call his mistake. Adraeus 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Darwin's mistake was reluctantly accepting the term evolution. For the term evolution already had a two-hundred year history of meaning what the creationists keep arguing against on this TalkPage. )) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Darwin was neither a semanticist nor a pedant. His interest was biology. Wasting his valuable time and intellectual energy on this mere issue was certainly not a priority. By the way, evolution meaning "the unrolling of a book" during that so-called two-hundred year history does not, in any way, support creationistic arguments nor is that meaning relevant to this article. The article concerns the modern scientific sense of evolution and not the flimsy usage of the 1600s. Are you a friend of Sam Spade? Adraeus 03:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the "two-hundred year history" does not support creationist arguments. But that two-hundred year history does explain in terms of cause and effect. Personally, I would prefer that the seventeenth century notions of "evolution" would not appear on the Evolution page. But unfortunately, this is Wikipedia. And NPOV requires considering the scientific view as only one POV that should appear on science pages. The current proportions on the Evolution page are about right, in my opinion. As for Sam Spade, I think it is interesting and significiant that the molecular biologists have not yet devised a lab demonstration that would convince Sam Spade. The Cavendish experiment did quite nicely to convince the creationists of "gravity." What is missing is a lab demonstration that would convince Sam Spade of the origin of species by naturalistic means.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure. We'll run that one right after the lab demonstration that would convince people of plate tectonics. Graft 19:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I doubt today's layman knew that evolution meant the "unrolling of a book" in the 1600s. That definition is also irrelevant to the content of evolution being an obsolete term. I don't see how evolution as the "unrolling of a book" explains any causes or effects related to the modern scientific sense of evolution of which this article is concerned. Adraeus 02:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, yes. But the problem does not seem to be plate tectonics; the problem is naturalistic evolution. According to the 1994 Science and Nature Survey by the American Museum of Natural History, 78% of Americans accepted naturalistic plate tectonics without divine intervention, but 90% of Americans rejected naturalistic evolution without divine intervention. I would guess that plate tectonics has little problem because Americans can see Mount Saint Helens blow up on national television. You know what! You and I should put together a proposal to the National Science Foundation to design an experiment explicitly for convincing the creationists--not for breaking technical ground. It could be a winner! 8)) Ideally it would be no more complicated or dangerous than the Cavendish experiment so any high school physics class could run it. I say "physics class" rather than "biology class" because I would guess that it would have to have some cool electronics, instrument controls, and computing power. What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If Mount St. Helens exploding is demonstration of plate tectonics, then seeing people die of retinoblastomal cancer is demonstration of naturalistic evolution. Our cavemen ancestors didn't see Mount St. Helens explode and say, "Oh, duh... plate tectonics!" (probably more like: "Ugh ugga! Ooooga...") There is no simple experiment that can demonstrate naturalistic evolution. It is not an elemental physical principle, like gravity. Graft 22:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Technically, I agree with you about the "cancer" demonstration. But I am sure it would not convince Sam Spade. And I am not so sure that there is not a simple experiment that would demonstrate naturalistic evolution. I am thinking. 8)) ---03:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The effects of gravity are easily demonstrated: the Earth is round. Of course, there will always, unfortunately, be people who insist that Earth was always round, that the Earth is simply a giant marble tossed from God's satchel, and humans are perfect creatures designed by the divine. Adraeus 02:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archea, Eukaryota, and Bacteria

All of the books/sources I have perused recently have stated Archea and Eukaryota are more closely related to one another than they are to Bacteria due to molecular evidence, and didn't really mention any controversy about it. These include a couple textbooks as well as a book by Dawkins. Is this so, did I just miss that this was tentative, or is it still controversial among scientists? Titanium Dragon 09:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Tree of Life website [1] shows two possible phylogenetic trees with Archea closer to Eukaryota than Eukaryota are to bacteria. A nicer color phylogenetic tree is at this UC Berkeley website [2]. JWSchmidt 02:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there sufficient evidence to say Archea is closer to Eukaryota in the article? Then again, if it is not a monophylitic group, we'd probably have to change the article again, and likely the term Archea would disappear to be replaced by two new groups. Then again, it isn't that much work to do, and it would be (slightly) more accurate, at least from the evidence I've seen. Titanium Dragon 11:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've read arguments that a lot of early development (e.g. the genetic code) came about via horizontal gene transfer, making it difficult to argue phylogeny. But I don't think there is anything like consensus on this question. Graft 18:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's a general concensus that archaeans are closer to the eukaryotes than eubacteria, or at least to the eukaryotic nucleus. The disputed questions are whether the archaeans are monophyletic, the eubacteria are monophyletic, and whether the eukaryotes emerged from only one or are a chimaera of both. Josh

This article has featured article potential

This article has a lot of potential to become a featured article (I should know, being that I'm the featured article director; however, I'm writing now as an editor). I think with some work, this article could easily be brought up to featured article standards. I've done some work tonight trying to get it there, but I could use some help→Raul654 02:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I munged with some stuff.

  • A lot of the sections are very choppy - I messed with Ancestry of Organisms but it's still in a bad way. The paragraph on the evolution of metabolic processes (presently in "genetic sequence evidence") needs a better home.
  • I removed a note on speciation from the Scientific Theory section. Maybe it needs to be put back there?

Graft 05:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On another note, I removed this pargraph : The production and redistribution of variation is produced by three of the four agents of evolution: mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection, in turn, acts on the variation produced by these agents. because, quite frankly, it confuses the hell out of me. At the very least, it needs to be rewritten. →Raul654 06:00, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, we're going to need references for this article before I nominate it to the FAC. →Raul654 06:00, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

3.5 billion year-old fossils

Are these fossils really well-supported? The 2003 Nature paper by Schopf, et al, was seriously disputed, and as far as I know it hasn't been definitely established that these are, in fact, fossils and not some organic artifact. Graft 17:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - then what is the most well-accepted oldest known organisms discovered? →Raul654 18:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Search me. Not my area of expertise at all. Anyone else wanna weigh in? Graft 18:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what if we included a reference to Schopf's paper in Nature and said that it was highly debated. Does that sound good? →Raul654 20:43, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I do say "as far as I know" - on inspection it seems that there are at least three independent stromatolite microfossils of comparable antiquity. Of course, they may all be artifacts in the same way, but I'd really prefer if someone more knowledgable than I commented on this. Graft 00:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the caption, and even cited a source. I also found the article itself - go here and use blahblah765/blahblahblah as your login/pass. →Raul654 05:06, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


An object lesson in taking quotes out of context

An Anonymous Coward inserted this quote into the text:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree..

You may see for yourself[3] in Darwin's text the next sentence:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing

conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. Just for your amusement. And remember: Thou shalt not take quotes out of context and thereby distort their meaning. Graft 00:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eye evolution

Furthermore, this very subject has been researched. In October, 2004, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory published more-or-less the final nail in the coffin of the evolution of the human eye - [4]. →Raul654 00:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely you mean "final nail in the coffin of the critics of evolution of the human eye," do you not? 8))) ---Rednblu | Talk 06:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry. What I meant by the nail in the coffin comment was that the research kills the eye-is-irreducibly-complex arguement. →Raul654 06:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry to break this to you, but more nails are needed. The modern argument isn't about whether the macroscopic structure of the eye is irreducibly complex, but whether the underlying biochemistry of vision is. See Darwin's Black Box.--Johnstone 03:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, it says it right there. It starts with a simple, light sensitive spot. A light sensitive spot is chemically simple enough (indeed, all that is needed is a protein that absorbs photons) that it could be caused by one simple little PAM. →Raul654 03:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
          • You seem to be underestimating the biochemical complexity of the light-sensitive spot, and thereby making Behe's point for him. A partial quote from him describing what is actually involved:
"When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
"GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to "cut" a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water in a bathtub." etc. (Three more similar paragraphs ensue to complete the overview.)--Johnstone 13:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Johnstone, Behe is refering the a cell within the modern, human retina, not a simple photosensitive spot. --JPotter 03:07, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. My error. But the way Behe uses the example at least implies that a light-sensitive spot isn't much simpler. If it is, then his presentation is misleading.--Johnstone 03:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's much simpler. If all you want is a spot that can react to light (which is, after all, what "photo sensitive" actually means), then all you need is an aglormoration of a substance that reacts to photons chemically or electrically. What you need is a protien that changes its conformation/any metal that changes it's electrical gradient/any of a ton of other possible molecules. →Raul654 03:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
In this context, I don't agree that "photo-sensitive" means "can react to light". I read it to mean "capable of being used by an organism to detect light." Just because a substance can react (and "unreact") to light (which, it's pretty obvious, is the case with numerous molecules) doesn't necessarily mean that the reaction will cause any signal to be transmitted to the central nervous system, or, if it is, that it will be interpreted as anything meaningful. But this issue has been addressed to some extent below by User:variable: "Scratching an itch, for example, is an incredibly complex behavior when viewed on the micro-evolutionary scale ... but I don't think any of us would cite is as being so complex that it would 'debunk' evolution in any way."--Johnstone 13:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So what? This is no more complex than any other biochemical pathway. And a lot of these players and mechanisms will be immediately familiar to people who have a knowledge of biology (GTP/GDP exchange factors, GTP-activated proteins, etc.). That by itself suggests that this system evolved from other similar systems, with another protein being adapted to a novel function. Behe is, frankly, up a tree if he thinks this is "irreducibly complex". Graft 15:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That other biochemical systems are similar, and more complex, may also make Behe's point for him: have any detailed evolutionary histories been identified for any of them? Also, why does the similarity of the system necessarily suggest evolution from similar systems? Why not design similar to other systems? I'm simply asking questions that reflect his criticism, which should probably be mentioned in the article.--Johnstone 02:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is not the place for this discussion, or for mention of Behe's critiques. His is a tiny, tiny, minority opinion ridiculed by the rest of the scientific community. It belongs, as Jason Potter says, in the ID article, not in this one. In any event, the similarity of other biochemical systems obviously undercuts the irreducible complexity hypothesis, since it readily suggests that scaffolding steps and cooptation of preexisting mechanisms is the mode in which these pathways could have evolved. And, of course, if you wish to demonstrate irreducible complexity, you must eliminate all such "could have" possibilities. Behe fails to do that by a long shot. Graft 04:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you want to mention Michael Behe, please do so in the Intelligent Design article. Darwin's Black Box is not peer reviewed and not a notable contribution to evolutionary theory. What is notable, is that on page 5 of DBB, Behe states that he has no problem with common descent, making mentioning Behe in the Evolution article even less worthy. --JPotter 03:03, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
The Origin of Species wasn't peer-reviewed either. ;) Also, I don't think Darwin's Black Box is intended to be a contribution to evolutionary theory. Among other things, it's intended to point out a possible shortcoming which, if it is real, would certainly qualify for the article. (P.S. I know, I know. Peer review as it is known today didn't exist back then!)--Johnstone 03:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the real sense of the word Darwin's original paper was "peer-reviewed" - Darwin presented a paper to his peers, they gave him feedback on his idea...and then published his idea (back-to-back with an article from Wallace). The book, like most books today was not peer reviewed, but the ideas that underlined it were presented to, and accepted by, Darwin's peers. Behe has not, to the best of my knowledge, had any of his ideas on evolution accepted and published by a reputable scholarly journal. Guettarda 05:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Darwin's original paper was not "peer reviewed" in the sense that it is understood today. Before presentation to the Linnean Society, he had shared it with only a very small number of (admittedly appropriate) friends and acquaintances: Charles Lyell (geologist), Joseph Hooker (botanist), Asa Gray (botanist), anyone else? He specifically refused anything more, because he did not feel that the work was complete: "I am fixed against any periodical or Journal, as I positively will not expose myself to an Editor or Council allowing a publication for which they might be abused." (Clark, The Survival of Charles Darwin, p. 107.) By your definition, DBB would probably qualify as "peer reviewed," too.--Johnstone 13:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's better, I think, to not even engage this particular argument at all. That is, just because something is difficult in no way renders it impossible. The Intelligent Design argument states that because some phenomenon (complexity of proteins, wing evolution, eye evolution, complexity of making a right turn in a crowded roundabout in London, etc.) is complex on the human scale, that is, it's difficult for US HUMANS to understand with our small brains, it is therefore to difficult for it to have happened on its own and must have had some "intelligent" guide. The fact is that just about any process you can think of can be made to appear complex on a certain scale. Scratching an itch, for example, is an incredibly complex behavior when viewed on the micro-evolutionary scale-- so complex, in fact, as to refer the evolution of the eye--but I don't think any of us would cite is as being so complex that it would "debunk" evolution in any way. I think Graft has it right with "Behe is, frankly, up a tree if he thinks this is "irreducibly complex", but I would add that one would be up a tree to find ANYTHING "irreducibly complex".variable 15:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True. Well, argument from design is an instance of Argument from Ignorance. It says, "I am so smart, I would find a natural explanation for this if there were a natural explanation. For anything I can't explain, a divine miracle is necessary." --Hob Gadling 16:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
If User:Variable means anything found in nature, on earth, then his or her last sentence is a statement of faith. What if aliens seeded the earth? Shouldn't scientists want to know if this occurred?--Johnstone 02:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how that has anything to do with it, really. If aliens seeded the Earth, then aliens seeded the Earth and we'll probably find some evidence to indicate that at some point. That is, aliens seeding the Earth is not the same sort of "creationist" argument as "Intelligent Design" is, in general, because all you've done is added another level: where did the aliens come from? And if the reticulans did come along and create us, it wouldn't exactly be the same sort of "ineffable" creation that's discussed by ID theorists, it would be an actual, physical seeding, presumably with some (even miniscule) evidence of the event. The point still remains: saying that something can't happen on its own because its complex is not any sort of proof at all-- there is no reason why complex things can't evolve on their own, and ergo, there's no argument to be made that they HAD to have been "guided".variable 06:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My point in the previous posting was simply that scientists should not adopt a dogmatic position that prevents openness to wherever the evidence leads, which is implied by your insistence that someone would be crazy if they found something to be irreducibly complex.
I agree that there is no argument to be made that complex things had to have been guided, or seeded, or otherwise intelligently designed. But there's also no argument to be made that they couldn't have been, either. The standard argument that asserts that is: Evolution by natural selection is the only known explanation that can, in theory, account for the origin of complexity; Therefore, it is the explanation of complexity. The conclusion isn't a logically necessary one. There may be other, presently unknown explanations. Moreover, even if, for argument's sake, one grants that it is, it doesn't explain the origin of the underlying rules—the laws of nature—nor matter, energy, space, and time. What caused them to exist is unknown—and could be anything.
An (imperfect and fanciful) analogy: Imagine intelligent computer programs (with no input or output devices) insisting that the only explanation of their operation must be due to what they can "sense" as computer programs, aware that there are rules (code) and entities (bits) that comprise their "universe," but being completely unaware of the computer that they run on. And its maker/programmer. And that the maker/programmer could actually manipulate the programs at will, directly from the outside of the computer, if so desired, etc. (Yes, I know, in this analogy, the maker/programmer, if human, is a mortal and apparently evolved being, and the lifetime of the physical universe is of limited duration. To a being that can create time, these limitations would be meaningless.)
And with that metaphysical coda, I'm about done advocating something—Behe's assertion of irreducible complexity—that I don't necessarily agree with, and am still looking into.--Johnstone 03:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which of course doesn't really have anything to do with ID; the intelligent design argument isn't that we shouldn't be so quick to jump to a conclusion (i.e., evolution) but that we should be just as quick to jump to a different conclusion (i.e., Intelligent Design--hence the name of the argument). The reply to that stands: the "proof" for ID is supposedly in the burgeoning complexity of extant systems, and my argument stands: burgeoning complexity will never indicate impossibility on its own, and thus ID has nothing to support it. Evolution (with a small "e") actually happens, and since we are (at least I believe) interested in the world as it actually is and not how it theoretically could be, I have no problem with bracketting off the possibility of stranger but possible theories for the time being and treating evolution as fact as the groundwork for further thinking. As for the metaphysical code presented; while I'd love to dig into it simply out of love for the debate, it doesn't have anything to do with ID or evolution and so it doesn't belong here-- if you want to continue it (though you've indicated you don't, but I'll still extend the offer) contact me on my talk.variable 14:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with ID evolution is that it requires that the information for the eye be inserted into the genome before the eye "was needed". In a way it's a sort of super-Lamarckian approach - things "evolve" as needed because the genes were already present. If aliens seeded the earth, then we have a special case - because the aliens themselves would either have had to be creted, or they would have to lack "irreducibly complex" systems. In that case we are nothing more than "Round-Up Ready" soybeans (ie, engineered organisms). The idea of putting the information for the eye into bacteria that don't need it presents the problem, of course, that modern bacteria lack those genes. I know, one could argue that the reason they "stayed" bacteria was because they lost those genes, but then when you add the diversity of the Archaea...I think the idea that the world was created in 4004 BC is more parsimonious than ID. Guettarda 14:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The next step

Ok, I've given this article a pretty thorough scrubbing, adding pictures, making the formatting uniform, adding information where I thought it was lacking, etc. I want to nominate it on the featured article candidates, but there's still one more thing to do. There was a lot of text before I got here, and now it needs referencing. Since most of the unreferenced text is not mine, I would appreciate some help in this regard (being that I'm not a biologist). →Raul654 04:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this requirement - what level of referencing do you want? Graft 07:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"A featured article should... include references by extensive use of inline references and/or by including a ==References== section (see Wikipedia:Cite sources)."--Wikipedia:What is a featured article →Raul654 07:22, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Style note

As folks are going through and cleaning shit up, can they keep an eye out for lines of the form, "Researchers have discovered so-and-so," or, "Scientists are researching the question of this-and-that". I hate that shit - it's ugly and needs to go. Graft 06:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wallace ?

The article prominently features Darwin, and does not mention Wallace even once?

Good point! I've added a couple of sentences to the historical section describing his role. →Raul654 06:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Billions --> MYA

Throughout the article there are references to time in "billions of years"; in biology it is standard to refer to these time lengths as millions of years ago (even in the thousands of millions) or MYA, due to confusion between American English and other variants on the definition of "billion". variable 09:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has consensed on a particular usage of the word billion (10^9) anyway - this is pretty much the standard for the English-speaking world now. Observe its usage in, for example, the Guardian or the Financial Times from Britain, or The Age from Australia, etc. Jargon and acronyms should be avoided in an overview article like this where possible. Graft 15:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Graft - Billion is pretty well settled and MYA is needless jargon. →Raul654 17:15, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I prefer MYA, but I agree that it would reduce readability Guettarda 17:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MYA is common enough, I don't see why we should reduce clarity for the benefit of some, who would not be hurt to learn this abbreviation (if they have serious interest, they'll see it again). It wouldn't be a problem at all if "MYA" was defined after its first usage.--Tothebarricades.tk 06:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit

The recent edit that removed the sentence regarding observed instances of speciation referred to an archived talk section to support his edit. I could find no such discussion in the referenced talk section. Also, here are some field observations of speciation:


Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41


Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Sorry that my comment was so hard to find. Your examples sound pretty good; would you add them to the article to support the claim? I'd be happy with the deleted sentence with these examples, although maybe the word "entirely" in the sentence is overstating the case. (If the Faeroe Island house mouse evolved into a fish, I'd consider this an _entirely_ new species; if it evolved into a different type of mouse, this is merely a new species....) Thanks for finding these examples. Zashaw 23:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, you're going to have to be content with that if you want physical observation - even mice and shrews are separated by 80 million years of evolutionary divergence. Graft 05:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I answered your question on Talk:Evolution/Micro vs Macro, in case you missed it. "Instant speciation" really isn't unheard of. Lots of plant examples because polyploidy isn't a big deal for plants to deal with. A little rarer in animals - they seem to be unhappy with extra chromosomes, while plants are not. Guettarda 22:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Introduction, the 'Shorthand' section

I found the "shorthand" paragraph vague, self-referential, and incomplete. It defined the 'common' understanding of evolution as based on Darwinian natural selection only, whereas most understand there's a genetic component as well. Therefore I rephrased and added a bit about Mendelian genetics and how that plays into the modern_evolutionary_synthesis to round it out. Thoughts? Issues? Flames?--FeloniousMonk 02:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Problems" with evolution

User:Boffey added the following section. As far as I can tell most of these are not "problems" - it appears to be a list of ID talking points, rather than real shortcomings. The article already has an "Evolution an Religion" section, it doesn't need a second one. Guettarda 14:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Evolution The theory of Evolution is not without it's problems. Here follows a list of some of them:

  • The First Life-form:
    • DNA is a molecule that does not form easily, and once formed, quickly decays. In the body, it is only kept together by enzymes.
    • The most basic of life forms (not including viruses, which need a host to reproduce) are bacteria. The simplest of these contains about 1,000 base pairs of DNA. Now, the first life-form cannot have evolved - evolution only occurs once life exists. Accepting this figure to be representative of this initial body, and accepting that every atom in the universe made ten trials per second, it would take approximately 10130 years to produce. Under evolutionary thought, the universe has only existed approx. 1010 years.
    • Even having overcome this hurdle, there needs to be a method of transcribing the DNA into useful molecules. However, the transcribing mechanism, along with the enzymes, are encoded in the DNA.
  • Degeneration: All the evidence suggests that mutations, the mechanism that is supposed to produce more genetic material, always acts in the wrong direction. It suggests that our ancesters should have been fitter that us, not less fit, as the theory suggests.
  • Link Fossils: Charles Darwin admitted that the lack of link fossils is a major problem with his theory. The situation has only got worse - in the millions of fossils, only a handful of highly disputed contenders have been found. Even amongst these, a number are now known to be forgeries.
  • Irreducible Complexity: Many systems (for example, the internal workings of the eye), have a number of highly integrated components. If any component was absent, or was only half-formed, the whole system would not function at all. Therefore, any transitional forms would be produce a net unfitness, and would be biased against.
  • Molecular Chirality: Most organic molecules occur in two different forms, a left-handed form and a right-handed form. It turns out that only one of the two is actually useful, whereas the other one tends to be lethal. No mechanism has been conceived that could have produced the chiral pattern found in life today.


Standard nonsense. Delete (oh, it has been). - Randwicked 05:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some of these might deserve refutation in the article, since they are traditional arguments against evolution. For example, it's true that most mutations lead to degeneration, but the point of theory of natural selection is that animals with good mutations live and breed more extensively, while those that degenerate are more likely to die. This has been confirmed by experiments wherein clusters of asexual bacteria quickly evolve immunity to antibacterial drugs. Deco 04:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Genetic Drift

The last sentence of the "genetic drift" section says it occurs if N < 0.5 s, μ, m; but doesn't give units or hard (i.e. measurable) definitions of those variables. Could someone with knowledge of the subject either delete the sentence or provide a bit more detail?

Thanks. SMesser 20:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two truths

Hello, If God is almighty and not bound by time; I see no reason, why the story about the creation of the universe, as told in Genesis of the christian Bible, and the scientific story about the appearing of earth, life and man should not both be literally true. I think this is an interesting idea to think about and I didn't see it anywhere in the evolution/creation texts. Greetings, Ben te Molder

The reason it will never be discussed on this page is that there is no scientific evidence that God is almighty and not bound by time. At best this is a theological claim that can be discussed only on pages dealing with theology. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This opinion might be considered an extreme form of evolutionary creationism — to say that both can be literally true because God is powerful enough to defy logic itself. But remember Wikipedia: No original research. Deco 04:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Lamarckianism?

A few years back a read an article on the National Geographic News website that stated "new evidence" had been discovered supporting Lamarckian evolution. Mainly it delt with retroviral infection, epigenetic changes and other instances of "traits" being inherited by progeny that first appeared within the lifetime of an individual organism. My memory is a bit foggy, but the gist of it was that a small number of modern theorists are dividing evolutionary change into two categories, based on the nature of the mutation leading to inheritence:

"Darwinian Evolution", in which mutations describable as copying errors in cell division are selected upon, leading to evolutionary change.

-and-

"Lamarckian Evolution" or "Neo-Lamarckian Evolution", in which changes (usually genetic in nature, but sometimes epigenetic) effected during an individual's lifetime, such as parasitic, retroviral, or symbiotic gene-transfer, are inherited and selected upon, leading to evolutionary change.

These were not meant to be exclusive, and both were said to often occur within the same lineage.

Has the field of evolutionary biology seen any more about this, did it all die out as quickly as it cropped up, or was this merely an instance of a reporter taking personal liberties with the presentation of the information? --Corvun 01:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's the last... epigenetics is fine, but I've never seen anyone trying to claim that epigenetic switching of genes is a major mechanism of evolution. Anyway, it's something of a canard, since epigenetic switching is usually predicated on genetic sequence. So... yeah, maybe there's one or two obscure examples of selection acting within an organism and being handed down via epigenetics waiting to be found. But I doubt it, very much, and anyone who says otherwise is most likely talking out of their other end. Graft 02:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I guess what was essentially being said or implied was that if a mutation occured in a germline cell producing an albino, and the albinism turned out to be advantageous and spread through the gene pool, it would be an example of "Darwinian Evolution"; but if the albinism was caused by a retrovirus (for example) damaging or replacing the genes that control the expression of pigment, and it turned out to be advantageous and spread through the gene pool, it would be an example of "Neo-Lamarckian Evolution".
It seemed like a completely superfluous distinction to me, explaining absolutely nothing that wasn't already known about the processes of biological evolution. Just hair-splitting (except possibly in the case of epigenetics, but I don't recall this being discussed any more than just a brief mention). Probably why I haven't been able to track anything down about it since then. But I thought it was interesting nonetheless. --Corvun 03:06, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
I would go a bit further and call it fatuous rather than superfluous; if a retrovirus changed the germ line of a creature AND its phenotype (are they any known examples of this?) it is doing two different things. One of them is a mutation-- Darwin didn't specify where mutations would come from. The other is changing the state of the creature, and this happens all the time as it is. These two things can both happen independently, and they could both happen from environmental conditions. For example, treating roaches with Black Flag roach killer causes the offspring to have a lethal phenotype without necessarily killing the parent, and most diseases (and retroviruses) have rather negative and apparent effects on their hosts. If the two phenomena happen to occur together, the evolutionary aspect is still only the effect on the germ line.siafu 03:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps more relevant is Edward Steele's theory regarding the immune system:
From the article on Weismann barrier: Other evidence against Weismann's barrier is found in the immune system. A controversial theory of Edward J. Steele's suggests that endogenous retroviruses carry new versions of V genes from soma cells in the immune system to the germ line cells. This theory is expounded in his book Lamarck's signature. Edward J Steele observes that the immune system needs to be able to evolve fast to evolutionary pressure (as the infective agents evolve very fast). He also observes that there are plenty of endegenous retro-viruses in our genome and it seems likely that they have some purpose.
It's a good book this one and the evidence presented seems good. I'm not a biologist myself so I can't comment further on what the wider community thinks of his theories. Barnaby dawson 21:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have a really hard time buying that, especially without any experimental evidence to back it up. Endogenous retroviruses exist because they can - because they are able to survive, and they need no other purpose in order to be there. Furthermore, what Steele is proposing is a very specific activity for a retrovirus - excising a specific genomic region and transporting it to a specific set of cells. That's a very complex activity, not a light and airy proposition that can just be tossed around. Finally, I fail to see why V genes would need to be inherited from somatic cells - the whole point of germline V genes is their combinatorial potential, their ability to explore an extremely vast space of biochemical interactions and interfaces. There's nothing to be gained by adding single instances of that vast potential back into the genome. Silly theory. Graft 21:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do you know of a good critique of his ideas Graft? You've got a couple of details wrong above but I'll comment on that later. Barnaby dawson 08:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't, sorry - I've never heard of him before. What have I gotten wrong? Graft 22:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Firstly the theory is that individual V genes that have been modified during the lifetime of an individual as part of the adaptation of the immune system are reinserted into the germ line cells through the action of certain retroviruses. This would change the subspace of the space of possible antibodies that is expressible (which is not obviously deleterious). Clearly if the V gene reintegrated was produced as a response to some pathogen then the change to that space is likely to be advantageous in the immediate region that corresponds to the pathogen.
Secondly there is experimental evidence for the theory although it is mainly indirect. V genes appear to bear integration footprints that indicate many previous instances where germ line genes have been replaced by soma line ones. This cannot be explained by events in the soma. The existence of somatic forms of V genes in germline cells indicates that they have been carried by retoviruses into the germ line before. The rate of mutation of V genes is closer to that of the DNA -> RNA -> DNA path than the DNA -> DNA path. There's other evidence given such as Wu-Kabat structures (which I find less convincing) but I don't have the book to hand and there's not much info on the web regarding them.
Steele and others proposed a hypermutation model for how the imune system deals with pathogens. This model has since been backed up by experimental evidence. See the article "Alternative splicing and hypermutation of a nonproductively rearranged TCR alpha-chain in a T cell hybridoma". This gives a good reason for integration of soma line genes into germ line ones. This mechanism will allow a much higher rate of evolution to occur for the immune system (which surely is one area which needs to evolve fast). Here is a link to an article criticising the idea [5]. Barnaby dawson 10:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone saying that the retrovirus would change the germ line of an individual AND its phenotype. My impression of the suggestion was that the retrovirus (or whatever the contributor of new genetic material) could mutate the germline (and other) cells, resulting in a phenotypical change in the offspring.
I'm aware that Darwin's theory of evolution said nothing about where the mutations came from. So no matter what the cause of the mutation, it should still be "Darwinian evolution", but I'm not the one trying to make the distinction. I just found the whole "Neo-Lamarckianism" thing really interesting. For some reason, these folks were saying that an inherited genetic change that occured within an individual's lifetime, regardless of whether or not this change was expressed in the generation first afflicted with the virus, was different than a "normal" mutation in its effect on the process of evolution somehow. The whole idea is pretty foreign to me, and I suspect even to most evolutionary biologists, but I had to inquire about it. If there's any sort of following in the scientific community concerning the "Neo-Lamarckian" vs "Darwinian" mechanism for evolution, it might benefit the page to give it a mention. If it has no support, then at least one person (me) has gotten the tentative final word on the matter. --Corvun 22:27, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think that these ideas deserve at least to be linked to. We certainly shouldn't present these "Neo-Lamarckian" ideas as being an alternative to natural selection. But more as a possible interesting exception to the normal rule. Barnaby dawson 10:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not exactly what you guys have been talking about, but along the same lines the article should have a section on Baldwinian evolution. I can write a very superficial account, but if someone knows a lot about it they should go ahead. Also, where in the article would it be most appropriate to place it? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is in trouble, (Lacking Molecular Evolution)

Because it does not give any treatment or time to Molecular evolution. Molecular evolution is our current day to day evolution theory that's being used throughout biology, but it's not mentioned here.

This is probably due to heavy editing and no-one noticing its passing.

This situation seems typical for heavily edited controversial articles: Global warming had some similar trouble once, some time ago, there existed revisions that had lost all references to the Greenhouse effect.

Kim Bruning 23:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you can go ahead and add molecular evolution to the main article if you feel that it is needed here and is not adequetly represented. kaal 00:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


RANT
Dude, if it lacks information on molecular evolution, it's broken. It will need a rewrite really.
Incidentally, other faults found here are that evolution is simply driven by selection (drop the "natural", we don't need it), and its good friend called variation. Variation need not be mutation, phenotypic variation is what's selected against, not genotypic variation. In any case the whole term "variation" is missing from the article. That's like Laurel without Hardy, Thelma without Louis, heck, it's like Louis without Clark! We are talking definate ut oh here.
By anology: This is like talking about car and mentioning that some folks like blue cars, some folks like red cars, and we all agree that driving is fun. There has also been some recent debate on whether a T-ford or Wr. Watsons' steam engine is the superior mode of transport. (not a 'contemporary' 1850's steam engine, mind you, I mean Mr. Watsons' original!)
  • This while neglecting to mention such trifling details as internal combustion engines, chassis, safety systems, and oh yes, maybe like just maybe wheels? . Not to mention that this article is firmly stuck in the 19th century. UGH!
END RANT
For folks who hate reading rants: Summary: this article is extremely incomplete, and needs updating from 19th -> 21st century.
Sorry about the rant, but sometimes rants are warranted :-) Kim Bruning 09:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I take that back, reading along, as far as the debate goes, it actually goes all the way halfway into the 20th century, like before the genome age (and there's no article on genome age? ARRRGH!). It still doesn't explain what evolution is though. Ouw... No wonder all the biologists who I refer to wikipedia look at me so dirty! :-( Kim Bruning 09:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Uh, piss off, Kim, and try using the "find" function on your browser before you toss off comments about what is and is not mentioned in the article. There's ample use of the word "variation" in the section on mutations.
Heh, I'm getting it back as strong as I dished out. It's my own fault for ranting. :-P
Variation is not actually introduced as being a separate concept, just as a synonym for mutation, which is wrong. - Kim Bruning
Also, you plainly have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution can't occur without genetic variation.
Irrelevant to selection. - Kim Bruning
Yes, there needs to be phenotypic variation for selection to act, but if selection is just acting on, say, ontogenetic variation then there can BE no evolution because there is no mechanism for inheritance.
This is true. However, also consider memes for instance. (**ducks and runs** [memes are a hated issue in some circles]) - Kim Bruning
Finally, the article is written the way it is because it's an overview article written for laypeople; it proceeds slowly from Darwin and does its best to bring people up to speed on a very vast field. Thus, terms like "natural selection" are appropriate because they are familiar to most people. And, besides, "selection" is just shorthand for "natural selection" amongst evolutionary biologists most of the time.
Not all evolution is biological. And not all selection in biology is natural anymore, in fact it might be a trap to the unwary to assume so. Most genetic data in the public databases is based on model organisms that probably haven't been outside for several generations. - Kim Bruning
Graft 14:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 16:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is about biological evolution, as it says up top. As to data in public databases - the major animals sequenced so far may have included some lab animals, but several generations isn't really meaningful. You're talking about tens of millions of years of evolution, especially with regard to comparison against humans. The relatively minor contribution of lab inbreeding is not going to seriously alter studies of selection on mouse genes. Regardless, the point I was trying to make is that evolutionary biologists for the most part talk about natural selection because that is what they study - few people study artificial selection, which operates, perhaps, in terribly different ways. But the study of -evolution- is the study of natural selection, not selection in general. Selective breeding of cows by humans might be considered evolution if your definition is loose enough, but really we know this is wrong; when we speak of organisms evolving, human hands are out of it.

It's not necessary to draw a strong distinction between "natural" selection and "artificial" selection; both modes operate on the same principles, just with different selection pressures. siafu 19:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only superficially do they operate on the same principles... population structure is a strong constraint on natural selection but totally absent in artificial selection; in addition there's really no concept of "selective pressure" when you're talking about artificial selection, since the breeder is entirely in control of allele frequencies and basically dictates what allele is going to be fixed. So in a single generation you might go from all-brown cows to all-red cows, and then go back to all-brown cows in the next generation. And there's differences in the kinds of mutations you accumulate; artificial selection seems to favor single mutations of large effect, which are believed to be comparatively rare for natural selection. Graft 19:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The point is that in basic "artificial selection", selective breeding, all the breeder is doing is placing his or her own selection pressure on the population (e.g., only red cows get to reproduce). Your example would require some amount of genetic engineering, and no allele fixation (otherwise you wouldn't be able to go back again if one of those alleles expressed in the entire population is recessive), which isn't really "selection" at all in the classical sense. Admittedly, that follows radically different rules, as suggested, but it's beside the (admittedly trivial) point. siafu 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As to variation, I'll disagree with your characterization of the text (e.g. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, since they introduce new genetic variation) but I'm just quibbling. I think you're right that an explicit description of variation is needed in that "Emergence of novel traits" section, to get down "evolution acts on variation; variation is introduced by mutation (et alia)"; I was just reacting to the strength of your claim about how bad this article is. WIP. Graft 19:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interbreeding

In the context of life science, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population of interbreeding individuals within a species.

This is a bad sentence. What does interbreeding have to do with the definition of evolution? In the absence of sex, is there no evolution? Josh Cherry 00:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit confused, yup! :-)
definitions:
*Population of interbreeding individuals == species
*Change in genetic makeup over time == evolution
*Evolution within species == microevolution
This sentence has species twice (once the definition, once the word), and it's actually defining microevolution, which is a term more typically used in a creationist or creation debate context.
Kim Bruning 09:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A population of interbreeding individuals does not necessarily mean a species - it might just be some smaller portion of a species, an isolated population. But, change in genetic makeup over time is not an adequate definition - offspring are a change in genetic makeup from the parent generation, but we wouldn't call that evolution. And new mutation is not necessary for there to be evolution; you can still have change in existing allele frequencies and we would call it evolution. So, evolution should mean a change in the genetic makeup of populations specifically, not individuals.
Which brings up the problem, since there's no easy way to define "population" except as a group that is exchanging genetic material (thus, interbreeding). Obviously this is going to be false in some cases, but not very many. So, not REALLY true, but good enough as a two-word definition. Probably if you axed 'interbreeding' it would be fine.
I think the narrow definition is fine, by the way - since obviously "microevolution" has to happen in any situation, and a broader definition would involve some crappy bipartite clause. Graft 14:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A population of individuals (without the interbreeding) might be heterogeneous, so you really need that extra word in there. At least that way you're never going to overestimate your species size. Kim Bruning 16:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only sexual populations interbreed, asexual populations don't, but they do also evolve. Dunc|☺ 16:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've never been clear on how an asexual population is defined, or an asexual species, for that matter. The definition is fuzzy enough for sexual populations as it is. Graft 16:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
have to be defined on similarity, either genetic or morphological, i.e. how long ago their common ancestor was. Most bacteria are done on the similarity of their 16S mRNa gene, for example. Dunc|☺ 16:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning's gloss on the sentence in question obscures the issue. I agree that the wording of the sentence might be improved, but the meaning is sound. Virtually all textbooks in evolutionary biology and physical anthropology today define evolution as changes in gene frequencies in a population. (that the population is interbreeding is taken for granted; changes in gene frequencies can take the form of either micro- or macro-evolution, as the difference is in the scale of changes in gene frequencies). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair deal to you, just there was a double definition in there that was confusing the op. :-) Kim Bruning 18:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

It appears someone has found a bug in our software. They put in #redirect de:en:Goatse.cx and this redirects to Goatse WITHOUT the redirect flag appearing. - 203.35.154.254 01:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take it up with the bugzilla and the software might evolve ot accommodate that. Dunc|☺ 12:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we do something to curb the vandalism?

Theoretically, we could lock it, but that's only a temporary fix or else we're going counter to the purpose of the wikipedia. So, really, not much can be done (short of finding a way to end the bitter conflict between religious zealots and scientists) besides continuing to revert whenever it happens. It's already list on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. siafu 03:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image change?

Just curious, maybe I missed it somewhere, but why did the image on the main page change from the fish with feet to a pic of Charles Darwin? (and while I'm on the subject, doesn't that picture make him look like Frankenstein's Monster's stand-in??) Dismas

I changed it because some people were complaining on talk:Main page, as well as on the template's talk page. →Raul654 03:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV? I think not...

The article presents a rosy picture of scientific acceptance which is not factual, it is trying to push an agenda. For instance the fossil record contradicts the theory of gradual accumulation of genetic changes. If you want NPOV you should include a section on scientific problems with the theory such as the conflict between classical darwinism and puctuated equilibrium, the gaps in the fossil record, the lack of common ancestors, and a host of others... but that I guess if you included that it wouldn't be an advocacy page, and might actually stimulate some scientific thought rather than darwinian religios fervor. Very dissapointed

If there is any scientific evidence against evolution, it should definitely be included. However, the "evidence" you cited is widely debunked creationist propaganda, as currently reflected on the page (using NPOV). If you can point us to any real evidence, please let us know where it is.
A single citation on PubMed would satisfy me.
The current formulation of this theory (which does allow for punctuated equilibrium as a mechanism) is not classical Darwinism. Gaps in knowledge (the fossil record) are not evidence of anything other than that fact (ever heard of unconformities that are gaps in the geologic record due to erosion?). God does not exist in the gaps in our current knowledge (see God of the gaps). -- mav 18:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why must evolutionists respond with knee-jerk anti-God stuff? Who said anything about God...? indicative once again of the agenda of the article (advocacy not science). The premise seems to be don't show any of the debate or anything which might lead to actual scientific inquiry because someone might think that there are unanswered questions... not very scientific. This article should be categorized under religion not science. If you think obscuring the serious scientific problems with the theory helps science you don't understand science half as well as you think you do. As a scientist you should not be concerned with what other ideas people may use to fill in your gaps: that's their problem not yours. If you try to obfuscate, deny or conceal them you are not advancing the cause of science.
Scientists might disagree on some of the specific points, but you'd be hard pressed to find (a reputable) one who thinks speciation-by-means-of-natural-selection is wrong. →Raul654 19:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
"[K]nee-jerk anti-God stuff" comes up because there are a group of people who claim to be "serving God" who have made a career by fooling gullible people with lies. So, anyone who has any interest in science is used to, and fed up with, people parroting these lies for the nth time. When you have ehard the talking points a hundred times, you tend to respond with a canned answer. Does that really surprise anyone? Sure, there are many scientists who are atheist, but there are also many who are religious people. One can criticise the basic underpinnings of science, the outrageous idea that through study we can try to find the truth, rather than simply relying on revelation or "the wisdom of the ancients". But unless you want to discard everything since the Renaissance (including the Reformation) you really don't have a leg to stand on. Evolutionary biology is science. Either science is religion, or evolution is not religion. Simple enough. Guettarda 20:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you suggesting there are no open scientific questions with the theory? No ongoing scientific debate? No data which is difficult to reconcile? I find that hard to believe. On the other hand, if there is, why is it absent from this article? You are condoning a deliberate effort to misrepresent the scientific debate in an effort to compensate for a societal opinion that bothers you. That's not science, that's proselytizing. Evolution becomes religion when people are more concerned with 'converting' and 'winning' than with open analysis of what is known and what is not known and a hope to stimulate more learning. That is what makes this article so dissapointing.
No, quite on the contrary - I was only explaining "knee jerk" reactions. Granted, it's sad that the discussion of evolution tends to use that language. In addition, some people see evolution as their evidence against religion (according to Michael Ruse, Galton and his allies used evolution as a tool against the entrenched position of the Anglican church, as a way to reform the social system in the UK at the time). I don't think this article mis-represents the debate in EB, but I need to look a few things up. Guettarda 21:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess you are all correct. There are no problems with evolution, it's actually a dead science now. If there are any gaps in the theory or the data you have full faith that evolution will solve them. After all, the power of evolution is amazing and asking questions might show a lack of faith in Him, I mean it. I'm sure that everybody knows exactly how whales evolved, for instance (why don't you include that in your article as good case study? There's a good image here: http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/smallsitemap2.jpg Of course the image shows the classic problem that all known species are in the branches not the trunk of the tree, a problems which someone here said had been solved, but surely this is an isolated example. Maybe include some other fancy graphics of those ancestry tree's they used to have in school text books? Or maybe that cool picture that shows the evolution of the horse? I'm sure you all know the one I'm referring to...). Yes, the ancestry of every creature is without question. Never mind the decades that evolutionists trumpeted gradualism and now admit the evidence was largely falsified, (http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html) but that's ok because we have the REAL answers now, no need to ask any more questions or look any futher. Sure they thought they had all the answers then, and it was OK to conceal the problems and twist the data because revealing them would only benefit those nasty unscientific people who rely on silly things like faith, and resent people questioning their philophical positions. Tsk tsk, it's good that science is above that now.

I guess I should take comfort that the only real harm that comes from your blinders will be to your field, and that there are undoubtedly non-arm-chair scientists who are actually trying to learn and not just spew dogmatic advocacy.

Surely you are the people and wisdom will die with you.

No one is saying all the questions are answered. The question "is the process of evolution (in some form or another) responsible for Earth's current biodiversity?" has, however, been satisfactorily answered. But in science, for every question answered, two more spring up. For instance, if you ask, "Where is the missing link between A and E?", and we suddenly discover C, then that causes us to ask "Where is the missing link between A and C and C and E?" If we discover B and D, then the question becomes "Where is the missing link between A and B and B and C and C and D and D and E?" This goes on forever. But while the evolutionists look forward to discovering the answers to these questions, the creationists attempt to portray them as fatal flaws in evolutionary theory.
All the questions are not answered. Evolutionists seek to answer these questions, whilst creationists quote the answers from a book. Which is more unscientific? --Corvun 06:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I didn't want to speak without verifying things. The original question was, why does the article not include the current debates in ecology. Some of these include: the role of epistasis in evolution (There are presistent laments that epistasis is ignored or, if its ubiquity is acknowledged, evolutionists would embrace drift-based of adaptation and/or speciation in which epistasis plays some role), the factors which allow hybrid zones to persist and that pervent the interbreeding populations from homogenizing to such an extent that heritable differences betweent hem disappear), the evolution and maintenance of sex, mate choice, the role and reality of sperm competition, the evolution of migration, altruism and kin selection, cheating, fitness landscapes (which descends from the old Sewell Wright-Fisher debate)... Ancestry is the easy part, given the rise of molecular tools. The debates in phylogentics and cladistics are centred around PhyloCode, and the importance of reticulate evolution. Finding specific ancestors in more of a palaeontology issue - what happened is recorded in the genes (and thus, not a big debate), how it happened, the history, the mode and tempo of evolution, these are things that draw intellectual attention. Maybe those are questions that should be raised at palaeontology. Guettarda 21:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NS and PE

This sentence, in the intro: "Natural Selection and punctuated equilibrium are two mechanisms used to describe how evolution has occurred." Doesn't this suggest that these mechanisms are analytically comparable and mutally exlusive? Isn't that wrong? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "gradualism"? PE still depends on a NS mechanism, AFAIK. Guettarda 19:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Graudualism isn't a mechanism but the assertion that species arise slowly over time. This contrasts with PE, a model that claims that the paucity of species-level transitional fossils implies that speciation is a rapid event (at least in geological time). NS and PE are both mechanisms through which evolution acts, but they are seen at different levels. PE depends on NS, but it operates at the level of speciation; that is, where one species arises from another. NS operates at the level of the individual organism.

The assertion that NS and PE are mutually exclusive would be incorrect, but I don't think that's what the sentance says, especially when read in light of the paragraph. The text in question attempts to clarify the varying "levels" of evolution, breaking the term down into something akin to component parts.

Please sign your comments. PE is not a mechanism, it is a characterization of a process. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theistic evolution--in article introduction

"Interestingly, some strains of creationist thought include evolutionary processes, thus providing some common ground in the debate." Judging by the statistics given here (hat tip to whoever put that link on the main page discussion), Theistic evolution is a widely accepted theory among the general public. That sentence above seems to minimize the strong theistic creationism beliefs in America. Ought it be changed or expanded by a sentence or so? Cigarette 19:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All I know is that most Americans who dispute evolution, dispute all of it. Any small parts of it that they accept are so fragmentary that they in effect dispute the entire process of evolution, and only reluctantly accept a few fragmentary facts. True adherents of theistic evolution (people who genuinelly try to reconcile theology without refuting science) are few and far in-between. The intellectual leadership and intellectual laity in Catholic Christianity, Modern Orthodox Judaism, and Conservative Judaism would be in this small group. RK 21:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that many ...enthusiastic Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christian, and Judaism is obviously right out. Then they turn around and say they believe in both predestination and free will. I know one who has a degree in geology, and after studying it for so long had no choice but to accept that the Earth is at least 3 billion (or however many, I forget) years old, and was basically pushed out of his group of friends for it. No amount of evidence will convince some people, and comprimise is not a real possibility between creationism and natural selection. --Ignignot 19:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Even most YEC accept micro-evolution. Indeed, their post-flood models are all dependant not only on evolution but in super accelerated evolution in order to account for the current biodiversity having arisen from single mated pairs.

Is there any evidence of those statements, RK?
Hmm, some Young Earth Creationists may indeed claim to accept the existence of micro-evolution as a proven fact. However, they are not really accepting anything, because in science micro-evolution does not and cannot exist apart from macro-evolution. In order to accept the existence of micro-evolution while simultaneously denying macro-evolution they need to make countless ad-hoc assumptions to make their system work, yet none of their assumptions have any proof. They are almost precisely like those people who held on to a system in which the Earth was believed to be at the center of the universe, yet also admitted that everything else in the Solar System orbits around our Sun. By trying to combine two contradictory systems, they ended up with an incorrect and indefensible system. The same is happening here. That is why I first said that "Any small parts of it that they accept are so fragmentary that they in effect dispute the entire process of evolution, and only reluctantly accept a few fragmentary facts." Of course, your mileage may vary. RK 01:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
RK, the only pieces of evidence I've seen presented in this discussion are the Gallup polls in the link above, which indicate that Theistic Evolution has a considerable following. In fact, its following among the general public is greater than that for Naturalistic Evolution and sometimes, depending on the demographic, greater than that of Creationism. I really think that blurb at the beginning ought to be altered to suit those statistics.
Argument ad populum? siafu 15:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the SuicideGirls.com bulletin board, we have an eye-rolling smiley. I wish it was available to me now... Just because your answer is pithy doesn't make it any less silly. ;) I'm not arguing right vs. wrong on the issue of Theistic Evolution, I'm arguing that that is a popular view and we should present it as such. Saying that it is not a popular view when it is is VERY unencyclopedic. (Though why I'm still harping on this now that the point is moot is beyond me. ;)) Cigarette 14:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And just because it's short doesn't mean it's wrong. Fisher, below, was until recently arguing until he was blue in the face that because all the various non-scientific (e.g., religious) objections to evolution were both popular and prominent in political and social fora, then they therefore belonged on this page. I'm not saying Theistic Evolution is not a popular view, I'm just saying that that its popularity is irrelevant to whether or not it should be mentioned or even clarified on the evolution page. siafu 16:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The opinion of the public-at-large on evolution has nothing to do with Evolution? Cigarette 15:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's correct. Rather than rehash the whole thing, I reccomend you see the discussion below. siafu 15:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Token anti-evolution link?

I have slight reservations as to the NPOVness of this article. More specifically the distinct shortage of anti-evolution links at the bottom compared to other similar controversial articles. --Xmp 22:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you supply some of the "other controvertial topics" for comparison please? Guettarda 23:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article isn't considered controversial, and we don't present the competing viewpoints as engendering controversy; we are pretty supportive of the idea that evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. It doesn't make sense, given that, to post external links to anti-evolution sources, merely to undermine the points made in the article. Graft 08:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem is there's too many of them. I guess we could put in links to the leading creationist websites [6] and [7] but that would miss several POVs. Perhaps the best one would be [8] which is fairly comprehensive in terms of links (although it is maintained by thoese evil atheist conspirateurs) Dunc|☺ 12:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of evolution by creationists

I am vehemently opposed to any discussion of Creationist talking points on this page. This is not the place for a protracted debate on ignorant people's straw men. It does not belong in this article, which is about the science of biological evolution. There is a previous discussion of evidence for evolution; if it is incomplete, update it, or augment the appropriate sub-articles. If you are interested in having a sword fight with Creationists, take it somewhere else. Talk.origins is probably your place. There, you may have the same stupid battles over and over again until your fingers fall off. Wikipedia is not the place for them. Graft 19:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, to a certain extent:
  1. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate. It is an encyclopedia. Anyone who is here with the goal of getting their personal views a fair hearing is probably in the wrong place; we're here to describe, not to advocate. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to describe debates. The place for that may not necessarily be this article, though:
  2. This article is entitled Evolution, and is about evolution, not creationism. We have another article entitled Creationism, which is the appropriate place for details on creationist views. However, people's and institutions' reactions to evolutionary science are somewhat relevant to evolution and should be referred to here, even if that reference is chiefly a brief description and link to Creationism and elsewhere.
  3. Evolution is a scientific concept, not a religious one. Although Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria has some problems, by and large we do not find science writers going into theology articles and adding criticisms such as "the Trinity contradicts the scientific idea that two entities cannot occupy the same space at the same time". :)
I think it's particularly important to be careful around the topic of "creation science" or "scientific creationism" -- for the very same reason that we have to be careful about, say, astrology or homeopathy or much of "alternative medicine". We need to simultaneously accomplish two contrasting goals:
  1. Describing these "alternative" views accurately, and
  2. Making it clear when the mainstream scientific & medical communities have studied them and rejected them -- and that this rejection is not simply a matter of disagreement or bigotry.
It's not easy. --FOo 20:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There have been a few other pages where Wikipedians have attempted to place this debate. I think it's a doomed enterprise, because it inevitably slips into actual advocacy, rather than being merely descriptive. The amount of crap written against evolution could fill a library, probably, but it wouldn't be a very good library; I'm not wholly convinced that describing this debate is an endeavor Wikipedia can or should take up. Graft 20:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a possibility: This article needs to state the fact that creationism exists, and that it is basically a rejection and critique of evolutionary science. However, any substantial coverage of what creationism is or what creationists believe belongs on the article Creationism. Likewise any material which specifically rebuts creationism doesn't belong here. Basically, creationism is a topic related to evolution, but creationism is not evolution any more than Buddhism is Christianity. So just as we do not discuss Buddhism on the Christianity article, we do not discuss creationism in detail here. This is not a matter of bias; it's a matter of focus and staying on-topic. --FOo 00:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't talk about their points here, I agree. Outside of the context of creationism, these beliefs are pure rubbish. I respect a belief in a "creator" (many scientists do - which is why "creationism" is sort of a misnomer), but I've talked to people who try to convince me that the Earth is 7,000 years old and that all fossils were planted there by wicked atheist evolutionists. So, yeah, it's tough to be NPOV without becoming a platform for patently false beliefs, actually more like delusions than anything. Perhaps we should have an article on the whole Evolution vs. Creationism thing? --Tothebarricades.tk 01:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There's more on the Evolution page about the Catholic position than there is on the Creationism page. But creationists are likely to add edits to evolution page - perhaps a separate linked page to cover disagreements will at least confine the edit wars to a "hot topic" page instead of one that needs more uninterrupted expository writing --JimWae 01:12, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
We do have an article on the creation-evolution controversy. That is a good place to expose (but not to expound or advocate) the arguments that partisans of either side make.
FWIW, it seems to me that the recognition of evolutionary science by the Catholic Church is probably one of the most important things to mention in regards to evolution and religion. The Catholic Church is the world's largest Christian denomination and has massive social and political influence in many nations. --FOo 21:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we are already aware of what the Catholic Church is, FOo. ;) Adraeus 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of evolution by creationists

I strongly disagree with with view that the very powerful (mostly American) religious/political movement to misrepresent and deny evolution has no place in an encyclopedia article about evolution. When people encounter the concept of evolution on a day-to-day basis, the odds are greatly in favor that it's about this denial or its effects. Ignoring this reality in an encyclopedia article about evolution, especially one that has a section on relgion and evolution, is simply a mistake.

I just as strongly agree with those that argue that "the controversy" should not be taught in science classes public schools, but Wikipedia isn't a science class in a public school.

A neutral description of the misreprentation of evolution by creationsist belongs in the "Evolution and religion" section of this article. If anyone disputes the neutrality of the material in this section, please correct it! This should be done using existing Wikipedia guidelines on Pseudoscience and Religion. Fisher 05:49, 21 Mar 2005

I've watched people attempt to write such a "neutral" description before in several articles. It inevitably degenerates into, frankly, crap, as both sides tear it apart to get the last word in. What makes you believe your attempt would be different? A separate page, at least, is warranted, for the sake of this article's health. Graft 15:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What good is an encyclopedia article about evolution or anything else that doesn't mention the most important aspects of the subject? Do you think that ignoring this issue will make it go away? A separate subject is certainly warranted because of the long detailed history of this controversy, but not to even mention the reality of evolution denial in an article on evolution is just silly. Besides, I though the whole idea of Wikipedia was to let everyone edit it, and the truth will out. Fisher
As an evolutionary biologist, I definitely don't think that this is the "most important aspect" of the subject. I'm not trying to ignore it; I'm merely stating my observation that writing this kind of article does not seem to be possible on Wikipedia. You're welcome to embroil yourself in the mess already in progress on Creation-evolution controversy. Graft 17:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why does this content get added again and again to the evolution page. I thought it was previously agreed on the talk page that this does not belong prominently to this page and should be discussed in the evolution-creation controversy page. Please get consensus before adding huge conetent to the page. Also this section just covers the ongoing problems with evolution and religion in the US and is irrelevant to the rest of the whole world. So please make a page about the conflict between evolution and creation in america and add it there. Most of the world doesnt care about it. kaal 19:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wrote that material new, this morning. If there's any consensus on acknowledging/not acknowledging evolution denial on this page, I sure don't see it -- please give a pointer. Failing that, please refer to the NPOV page about deleting material wholesale as a last resort. It's too bad that you don't care about evolution denial and you're lucky you don't have to deal with it where you live---but it's important, and simply judging by news/legal ink spilled, the most important aspect of evolution to American society today. Since Americans spend the most on research, news, textbooks, etc., the importance of evolution denial seeps out to the rest of the world, like it or not. That's why American creationists influence Turskish creationists, Australian creationists, etc. Ignoring this major aspect of evolution in an encyclopedia article is really silly---just so a Google News search on evolution to verify this. I'm reverting the page back to the last copy where there some NPOV changes. If anyone else has NPOVor accuracy corrections, please make them. Furthermore, if there actually is consensus spelled out somewhere on ignoring evolution denial on this page, pleasue point us to it. Fisher 04:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we are generally in agreement that this page should only be a treatment of scientific theory, and other aspects should be footnotes or pointers to other articles. Articles should have one subject; I don't see why you think this subject matter belongs here, as opposed to the creation-evolution controversy page. Also, "I worked hard and wrote something" is not an excuse to keep it here (or anywhere), unfortunately. Graft 22:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Graft, that misrepresents my response. I replied that the material was new in response to the question of "didn't we discuss this material already?", not as some excuse to keep it, as I suspect that you already know. Fisher 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This article does need to mention in moderate, cited detail the social, religious, and political issues. It does not need to go into specifics -- every court case, particular arguments used. For instance, we do need to state here that there's an issue about teaching biology in U.S. public schools; we do not need to detail the tactics of deniers "cramming" school boards, PTAs, and other "boring" offices for the purpose of pushing denial in the school system.

Likewise, we don't need the full history of the reaction of religious groups to evolutionary science in this article. We do need the high points, like the Catholic Church on the one hand and American conservative Protestants on the other. --FOo 05:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Radiometric Dating

Did I miss something? When has anyone ever received an absolute conclusion from radiometric dating? Uranium, potassium argon, carbon - all of those methods produce approximate results at best. Do I have to go out and find the info, or can we just agree on this one? Salva 20:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think what is meant by "absolute" is not that the number of years is exact, but that the age is measured in years rather than reference to a geological event. -- Temtem 21:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Absolute dating as opposed to relative dating. Relative dating is dating based on strata. Absolute dating is dating based on some external measure - e.g., radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based on phenomena known outside of the system in question. You can thus date a rock independently of its relative position. Guettarda 21:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dates are approximate in that radioactive decay is a random process, so we can be 95% sure that rock X is between 1.1 and 1.2 million years old, (say) and maybe 98% sure rock X is between 1.0 million and 1.3 million years old. If you know any statistics you'll be aware that this isn't particularly unusual. And yes, you absolutely need to cite your sources. Dunc|☺ 21:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I have a couple of quotes here from random texts that might help:

"A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago!"
-Antarctic Journal Vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971 p.211
"A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of homosapiens "Erectus" was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years, a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
-Leslie Kaufman, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (Dec. 23,1996), p. 52.
"Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old."
-Earth and Planetary Science Letters, pg. 6-47 & 55.

If there is another word we could use there, that would be fantastic. Absolute is extraneous and slightly misleading to our readers. A few suggestions would be approximate or estimated or possible, or anything else that may come to mind. Salva 22:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. "Absolute" is the correct word. "Exact" might be misleading.
  2. The seal issue is perfectly logical and a known issue with 14C dating - fossil carbon enters food chains in the Arctic/Antarctic as it erodes from the land. It's a curiosity, not a surprise, and something that is taken into account. The carbon was most probably fixed 1300 years ago.
  3. According the Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens#H._erectus H. erectus lived until 70k years ago. Not sure what the current time frame for H. erectus extinction is, and Newsweek isn't a scientific publication, but this doesn't mean that there is a problem with the dating system.
  4. You need to fix the ref on the Etna thing.
  5. This should be at Talk:Radiometric dating. Guettarda 22:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Absolute is not the same as exact or more technically, precise. Absolute is just the opposite of relative. E.g., 2:41:34 PM is absolute vs. "3 hours, four minutes, and twenty-seven point five seconds ago" is relative. Both are precise (exact). I also agree that this discussion belongs over at Talk:Radiometric dating. siafu 22:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This talk should be here because it pertains directly to a possible change with the evolution article.
  • If absolute is the correct word, then perhaps you should also specify which of the word's 10 definitions is meant in the statement
...and their absolute age can be verified (with) radiometric dating.
  • In science, isn't the word "precise" the proximity between several measurements and "accurate" the proximity to the true measurement? If this were true, then the accuracy of the results of RM dating is still unknown, and the precision of RM dating is extremely poor, judging by the irregularities of all correlative past measurements.
  • Subject matter is distorted by saying such things. Why would you want to confuse readers like me in such a way that leads me to question the integrity of the article? Why is there any need to go off onto tangents with word usage? Regards, Salva 23:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really necessary, but what about the following edit?

and their absolute (non-relative) age can be verified with radiometric dating.

-- Temtem 23:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be so much trouble to say and their approximate age can be verified with radiometric dating.?? I think we're being pretty liberal with just that! Salva 00:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I support the use of "absolute" as it stands in the article. I do not believe I've ever seen "absolute" used as a synonym for "precise" or "accurate". The use of "absoute" is appropriate, in my opinion, as it is used precisely as intended, to show that this determination is not relative. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Salva: unless or until you can present us with evidence that indicates that a) radiometric dating is not only "off", but that this view is accepted by the scientific community at large (wikipedia is not a venue for original research; discussion of this point should be done on the radiometric dating talk page), and B) that this affects its use in the article on evolution (this article), I don't think we have reason to change it. Radiometric dating is exceptionally precise, given the scale on which it operates (millions of years), and as far as we are able to determine, accurate. Distinguishing absolute in thee article as "non-relative" seems redundant to me, but if you are that confused by it then I suppose there may be enough demand to clarify it. siafu 00:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me - no one here is the official spokesperson of the world's scientific community. There are scientists that know how unreliable RM dating is. I just gave you three examples above - do you need more than that? I'm not trying to do research - I'm telling you what has been researched and you are opposing science, because now you are being presented with a problem and are completely disregarding the scientific method. Science is supposed to be progressive, not obstinent. Now religion, on the other hand, is a different story... Salva 00:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the examples you gave only have to do with the accuracy of radiometric dating. As stated above, the word "absolute," as used in this article, does not imply anything about accuracy. It's only used as an antonym of "relative." Perhaps you'd like to start an article on criticisms of the accuracy radiometric dating, but that's not really the issue here. -- Temtem 01:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Salva, repeatedly stating that your opponents are "opposing science", inquiring if you have to go out and find the info (of course you do, that's how this works), and claiming that those who disagree are "ignoring" facts or methodology does not substitute for an argument, and it verges on personal attacks in being inflammatory. As for your three sources; it doesn't appear that any have stood up to scrutiny. #1 is relevant to the specifics of Antartic ice and the carbon frozen within it. #2 is especially memorable with the recent discovery of hominids that very much resemble H. erectus living in that time frame in Indonesia (never mind that it comes from Newsweek). #3 is fine by me; an active volcano should give unusual results with K-AR. Additionally, it would be a good idea to refer to more than one sentence: if you look in the archived discussion for this page you'll find a beautiful example of what happens when quotes are taken out of context. Nobody is claiming to be the "spokesperson" for the scientific community; that doesn't mean we can't find out what the consensus is, which has been done, and is by and large reflected on the page attached to this talk. Regardless, it seems pretty clear that you're not going to be able to gather a consensus in your favor here, so further finger pointing is not going to serve anyone (especially not you). If you want the world to believe and understand your different (currently minority) views on evolution, you should probably start in academia and then bring it here, not vice versa. siafu 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's unbelievable how many assumptions you are making here. You have no idea who I am, where I am from, or what my educational background is. What if I told you that I had a M.S. degree in environmental science from the University of Missouri-Columbia? This is a personal attack because you are attempting to inferiorate me by targeting my education. How do I know that you are educated? Will you give me your word? What if I gave you my word?
  • This conversation went off on a tangent, once again, because one word seems to be a threat to your sacred theory.
  • I would love to provide further research about RM dating inconsistencies. Give me a little time and you will all have them. Regards, Salva 01:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you even said yourself that RM dating was effected in areas with volcanic activity and in Antarctica. Does this mean that they are only valid when applied to dating layers of strata? This is almost funny to hear from someone who claims that they are educated! Please, I am not trying to attack you, but you are being sooo incoherent and stubborn about something sooo clear. Salva 01:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old."

-Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,"

-American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

More Bad News for RM Dating

You want some more? How much is it going to take? But yes, "maybe the snail's environment adversely effected the amount of carbon it contained," or "oh, that's just from the American Journal of Science. They probably biased their research against evolution." No, really - I think saying that RM dating gives an approximate calculation is the more feasible thing to say. We don't want to give any wrong ideas - such as that RM dating proves evolution, do we?? Salva 02:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I really believe you are getting sidetracked here into a debate about the accuracy or desirability of radiometric dating. That wasn't the issue you first raised, which was whether the word "asbolute" was appropriate. In the context of this article, the word is used in a technical sense to mean "the opposite of relative." This is somewhat apparent because the word is used to contrast radiometric dating with dating based on strata level--a relative method of placing a date. The issue, therefore, is not whether radiometric dating is a useful proof of evolution (though you may want to write about this elsewhwhere). The issue is whether the technical meaning of the word "absolute" used in this article is obvious enough to the lay reader to stand on its own, or whether it needs to be explictly defined as "non-relative" in the article. -- Temtem 02:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall making any assumptions about your education. I don't recall making any clear claims about my own education. It would probably be smart on your part, then, to refrain from saying things like "This is almost funny to hear from someone who claims that they are educated!". I also don't recall saying that any of the publications you cited were biased one way or another. Newsweek is not, however, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and as such is not appropriate as evidence in any argument about science (this should be self-evident). The quote you've gathered from the American Journal of Science reads, to me at least, to in fact be supporting the validity of RM-- "Radiometric dating would not have been possible", meaning it clear is possible. As far as the snails, I don't know. Maybe you should present the rest of that paper so that we can clearly see what's being asserted there, instead of just one sentence?
Knowing that the possibility of putting this to rest is nil, I'll just point out that, strictly speaking, the fact that radiometry is an "approximation" is hardly news, nor does it significantly affect radiometric data. It is quite simply a fact of measurement that approximations are used; every measurement made with any tool is an "approximation", and radiometry is no different. Taking your temperature on a mercury thermometer is an approximation simply because it's impossible to tell the difference between 98.6000001 and 98.6000002 with your eye. It doesn't make it inaccurate, or even imprecise given the scale. As such, it's not misleading to cite radiometric dating as "absolute".
However, I do think I said above that it wasn't serving anyone to drag this out here, and I'll have to hold to my own advice. Clearly, I've been trolled, but I've satisfied my need to explain. Have fun. siafu 02:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As this discussion has shifted to the accuracy of radiometric dating and no longer concerns absolute versus relative ages, I think it would be appropriate to continue it at Talk:Radiometric dating. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not neccessary - I will do the best I can to keep the conversation on track. The problem that I have here is that "absolute" is much too strong a word to use for describing the reliability for radiometry to be used as proof for the age of rock layers. If you are going to say absolute, then perhaps you should include a sidenote that says something like

Radiometric dating methods have been known to produce flagrant and very inaccurate results, especially with substances presumed to be much older, but nonetheless, evolutionists claim that the ages of the rock layers can be determined by this single source. Absolute is used as a technical connotation in this case, and is meant as the opposite of relative.

Why you need to be so vague about this, I really don't know, but if you insist, then that's one of the alternitives that I see for the word. The point is this: most people who read this article to become informed about the theory of evolution are likely not going to be scientists. Wouldn't it make sense to give them the right idea? Because I'm pretty sure that if you look in a dictionary, the word "absolute" does not have the meaning that you have proposed, and therefore is a connotation in this case. Poetry uses a lot of connotation, but a science article should not be poetic in any way - straightforward and unambiguous. Salva 16:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolute \Ab"so*lute\, a. [L. absolutus, p. p. of absolvere: cf. F. absolu. See {Absolve}.] 3. Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; -- opposed to {relative} and {comparative}; as, absolute motion; absolute time or space. [1913 Webster]. Graft 18:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any suggestion of "exact", "perfectly accurate", or "reliable" appears to be absent from the definition of absolute. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's the full entry from Webster's on "absolute."

Main Entry: ab·so·lute Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-' Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English absolut, from Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve 1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE <absolute alcohol> c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED <an absolute lie> 2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint 3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence "this being the case, let us go"> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in "help the blind" and ours in "your work and ours" are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in "if looks could kill" is an absolute verb> 4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom> 5 : POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE <absolute proof> 6 a : independent of arbitrary standards of measurement b : relating to or derived in the simplest manner from the fundamental units of length, mass, and time <absolute electric units> c : relating to, measured on, or being a temperature scale based on absolute zero <absolute temperature>; specifically : KELVIN <10° absolute> 7 : FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE <absolute knowledge> 8 : perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice> 9 : being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music> 10 : being the true distance from an aircraft to the earth's surface <absolute altitude> - absolute noun - ab·so·lute·ness noun

As the first definition is "perfect," I can see how there might be some confusion. -- Temtem 19:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can also understand the confusion. Answer's long page of definitions gives only a single one that really states "absolute" as being the opposite of relative, and that's way down in an Encyclopedia entry about philosophy. The rest of the definitions have to do with purity, or un-questionableness.
Add to this confusion the fact that the standard for radiometric dating is actually to define dates relatively: x million years before present.
While I think the article is correct in it's use of "absolute", a qualifier such as (e.g. not relative) could do no harm. — Asbestos | Talk 19:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Look, this is an absurd debate. We're not here to coddle people who lack the requisite reading comprehension skills. There IS an effort to do exactly that, over at the Simple English Wikipedia. Go there if you'd like to continue this farcical dispute. In this article, the meaning is absolutely clear. Observe:
Nevertheless, fossil evidence of prehistoric organisms has been found all over the Earth. The age of fossils can often be deduced from the geologic context in which they are found; and their absolute age can be verified with radiometric dating.
Readers are required to deduce meaning from context all the time; this is not unreasonable, and we shouldn't have to include a five-sentence disclaimer every time there's some remote possibility of ambiguity. Graft 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict - I was going for exactly the same quote. Guettarda 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

Use another word besides absolute, please. I agree with Asbestos, but if you are still absolutely sure about the ability for RM dating to achieve a unanimous absolute in all measurements, then I suggest you check the latest research. ;-) Salva 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding it very hard to avoid breaking the "No personal insults" rule, here. If you have an issue with the accuracy of radiometric dating, then PLEASE take it up there: Talk:Radiometric dating. Don't fight proxy wars here. If you're willing to lend actual weight to your claims, I'm sure others will be happy to entertain your ideas. Graft 20:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop avoiding the conversation, Graft! I gave you quotes, I gave you the link to a research paper...what more do you want? There is an issue with the accuracy of radiometric dating - it NEVER produces ABSOLUTE measurements. How is a billion years an absolute measurement for the age of a certain rock layer?! Do I hear circular reasoning blowing in the wind? Isn't that how fossils and rock layers were dated in the past and are usually dated today? Please do us all a favor and scroll up the screen to the 5 or 6 quotes that I gave - all with legitimate and authentic sources. That is SCIENCE. SCIENCE has shown that RM dating is not always reliable. SCIENCE does not ignore NEW OBSERVATIONS. We have a very evident problem here with our communication. You seem to think that:

  1. I am against science (so this must include physics, atmospheric science, anatomy, physiology, psychology, sociology, political science, and countless other fields.) Does anyone else think that telling someone they are against science is slightly oxymoron? Let's get this straight for the record - telling a person that they are against science is inappropriate, false, and arrogant. So don't do it.
  2. I am attacking someone personally. (WRONG)
  3. Going over these points again and again and again is achieving something - WAKE UP and face the facts.

Now, are we ready to get back on track? Salva 20:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls (The good sheik is probably ignorant of the evidence. Even more likely, he is so hopelessly biased that no amount of evidence would impress him...). Dunc|☺ 20:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] There appear to be two issues here

  1. Not understanding the meaning of the word "absolute".

It isn't the "biggest" word in this article, let alone in Wikipedia.

  1. Not believing that radiometric dating works.

To this end a few 20-30 year old articles are cited, without context, using a personal website as a reference. A 20-year old problem with 14C dating based on the fact that some freshwater desert molluscs incorporate "old" bicarbonate. People aren't stupid - you can adjust for these things. Bomb carbon had all 14C dates screwed up for a long time - which is why if you read archaeological literature they differentiate between calibrated and uncalibrated dates...a huge nuisance if the material isn't available to recalibrate, the type of thing that you really would want to cover up, if there really was this huge conspiracy that creationists fantasise about. But that's why there are stable isotopes - so you can determine whether you are looking at organic carbon or bicarbonates. The literature is out there. Rather than waste everyone's time cherry picking "problems", why not take the time and look at the literature, educate yourself about the context of things, and then, if there really is a problem, bring it up. And believe me, if you brought up real problems, if you presented well-researched ideas, people would be interested. If you actually have the interest in truth that you claim to have, you should stop repeating information that is designed to deceive. There is a reason that context matters. Guettarda 20:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dunc's right. No point arguing with a fanatic. "How can I tell that the past is not a fiction designed to explain the difference between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind". I'm done (yeah, I said that before). Guettarda 20:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"How is a billion years an absolute measurement for the age of a certain rock layer?!" Because it is not relative; not saying newer than the such-and-such layer but before the such-and-such meteor hit. For instance, saying the Earth is bigger than Mars is a relative size; saying it is about eight thousand miles in diameter is an absolute size. The amount of precision or accuracy is irrelevant. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what do you propose differentiates an absolute measurement from an approximate measurement? Salva 01:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An "absolute" measurement can be either approximate or exact. It isn't necessarily one or the other. -- Temtem 02:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
For example, compare "the boy is 4 years, six months, two days, and 3 hours old" with "the boy is between four and six years old." Both are "absolute" measurements, even though the first is comparatively "exact" and the second is comparatively "approximate." A non-absolute, or relative measurement, would be expressed as "the boy is two years, 1 day, and 3 hours older than his sister" or "the boy is between 1 and 3 years older than his sister." Both of these measurements are not "absolute," even though the first is exact and the second is approximate. -- Temtem 02:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Temtem. "Absolute" and "approximate" refer to different qualities. A real-world example might be using a spectrophotometer to measure unknown concentrations. You would be able to say that your sample A was a little more concentrated (say, 1.2 times) than the standard; sample B was a lot more concentrated (6.52x), and sample C was less concentrated (0.82), but these are all relative (even though they may be quite accurate). Once you determine the (absolute) concentration of the standard (say, 0.3 mol/L), you can then determine the absolute concentrations of the samples. Or the example (as I understand it) in geology is that by themselves, rock layers only give relative ages: items buried in this layer are newer than items in the layer below them. This is relative. If you have another system, such as radiometric dating which determines absolute (not relative) ages, then you can get absolute ages for the items. This applies regardless of the accuracy of your method of determining dates. Does this make sense? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For a similar use of the terms 'relative' and 'absolute' take a look at relative pitch and absolute pitch. — KayEss | talk 05:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the best way to understand absolute is to track down its deeper meaning. Absolute is a way of measuring things. Absolute is also a temperature scale. The temperature scale is measured in Kelvin(K) after Lord Kelvin. Lord Kelvin lived in the UK. Queen Elizabeth also lived in the UK. Queen Elizabeth is also a boat. Boats are in the sea. Fish are in the sea. Fish have fins. The Fins fought the russians in world war 2. The russians had a communist government. Before that they had an absolute monarchy. Since their absolute monarchy was lined up against a wall and shot with nothing around them, we can see that absolute is a way of measuring things with nothing around it. I hope that clears things up. --Ignignot 15:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


Deleted sentence regarding Roman Catholicism and soul

I deleted the last, concluding sentence (in bold) from the following:

In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
placing the Catholic church at odds with the findings of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, both of which attempt to provide scientific explanations for human behavior and consciousness.

It does not follow from the definition of "soul" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man." --Johnstone 00:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Mutation and Article Organization

I believe that this statement about mutation may be incorrect or misleading:

"Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, since they introduce new genetic variation, without which evolution cannot proceed."

The comment about the "driving force of evolution" also appears in the Mutation article.

I thought natural selection was considered the driving force of evolution and mutation was only one of several mechanisms that could generate variation that natural selection could act upon. Other mechanisms include genetic recombination and horizontal transfer.

This focus on mutation over natural selection is also apparent in this passage, "Microevolution consists of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection" and also in the organization of the article.

I feel like the article would be better if natural selection were moved up, maybe organizing the section on the scientific theory more like this:

  1. Differential survival of traits
  2. Emergence of novel traits
  3. Microevolution and macroevolution
  4. Speciation and extinction
  5. Ancestry of organisms

(this comment by User:Mayumi 8:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC), {Kim Bruning 09:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)} )

Selection and Variation are roughly equally important I think. If either is missing, then there's no evolution. Kim Bruning 09:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mutation is perhaps the most important way of providing variation, but I don't think it should really be called a "driving force" - I would think that the strength of selection is independent of the rate of mutation. If it were to be considered a "drivign force" then there should be some relationship between the rate of mutation and the rate of evolution. Guettarda 14:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also think that in the section on mutation, there should be more discussion about the different types of mutation (point mutation, frameshift mutation cause by insertions or deletions, etc.) and the relative helpfulness/harmfulness of mutations, maybe including examples like sickle cell anemia. This page from the Talk Origins archive might be a good source. Mayumi 21:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article is sloppy in places in making a distinction between two kinds of forces: those that introduce genetic variation, and those that alter the frequency of that genetic variation. Not surprising, since a lot of biologists are sloppy about making the same distinction. Obviously mutation falls in the first category, and drift, selection, gene flow, fall in the second. I think both of these should properly be considered components of evolution, and I DO think the article generally makes that clear. But there are probably many places where it is not clear that need to be cleaned up, to emphasize that both kinds of forces are necessary, "driving" forces.
I don't agree that a full discussion of different types of mutation is in order, incidentally; that's a level of detail not required in this article, especially since there is already a separate mutation article. Graft 21:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If we don't elaborate more on specific aspects of mutation, then I think we should think about how to make the organization of that section a little tighter. Right now there's the picture of the different kinds of mutation on the right (which seems to have been lifted from the mutation article) that has neither an informative caption nor a direct relation to the article text, and the comment on neutral mutation seems out of place where it is (not to mention that neutral mutations are defined again in the section on natural selection, which seems redundant) . Mayumi 23:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I don't really like that picture. It only presents chromosomal rearrangements as mutations. It was put in there to make the article prettier for featuring... i think we should lose it. Graft 03:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

niche creation

I think that the article is currently wrong when it states that there is no clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. I'm not an ecologist, but I know several ecologists and they seem to think that there is a distinction. I think this comes down to niche creation...you can't have speciation without a niche for the new species to fill. Also, I want to point out that niche creation is different from niche construction. Niche creation does not require any activity on the part of the organism, except to exploit the opportunity. I think it has something to do with competition for a limiting resource... This is to say nothing about the organismal changes involved in speciation, such as genetic incompatibilities or physiological trade-offs requiring specialization for one niche or another. AdamRetchless 22:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, the mechanisms of micro and macro evolution are the same; the difference between the two is a matter of scale only.
If you mean "mutation and natural selection", then I agree that they are the same. However, I think that the nature of the mutations and the nature of the selection is (self-evidently) different. Anyway, we aren't going to resolve this here. I won't return to this topic until I get a chance to pull up some textbooks and get a better idea of the common opinion on this topic is. As a note, I get the impression that there may be different opinions from those who study microbes (like I do) and those who study plants/animals. Or perhaps the gap is between those who study genetics from a physiological viewpoint and those who study it from a population viewpoint. Anyway, that gap is closing and we're gonna see some big advances in this area in the next few decades.AdamRetchless 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think what you are referring to is better situated in a debate over what is the object of natural selection -- many believe it is the organism; Dawkins argues it is the gene; Gould argues (in his last work, which I have read about but not read directly) that it operates at the species level. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think Gould was arguing that it happens on multiple levels simultaneously, which makes sense to me. (I never finished reading his last work...I only made it through the 90-page introduction)AdamRetchless 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the "niche creation" aspect has to do with it, but I'd agree that "macroevolution" implies something different than "microevolution". There's no clear distinction in the sense that physical processes underly them both, but there are obviously distinct mechanisms driving speciation, genetic and selective, compared to everyday adaptation. Graft 17:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Drop the "niche creation" comment if you'd like. It may be more of an ecological concept than an evolutionary concept. AdamRetchless 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The mechanisms are identical in micro and macroevolution, The only real difference is that in "macroevolution" you have the situation where 2 (or more) populations become decoupled and thus will tend to eventually drift apart. Kim Bruning 00:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Macroevolution involves the genetic and ecological separation of populations. That is very different from the mechanisms involved in microevolution (still mutation and selection, but of a different nature). AdamRetchless 13:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think I just said that those were not different, just that they go out of sync in 2 separated populations. Kim Bruning 15:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, that's ONE mechanism of speciation out of many; furthermore, mechanisms resulting in genetic isolation can't be described merely by "mutation and selection". Large chromosomal rearrangements are a good example of an event that might be considered to partition these two. Graft 16:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, is there any reason to keep treat macroevolution separately from speciation and extinction? AdamRetchless

Perhaps my concern over making a distinction between micro and macroevolution is this: it fetishizes the concept of "species." I am not trying to argue over the definition of "species," but the fact that evolutionary scientists argue over it is enough to signal that it is a complex issue. What I am trying to call attention to is that one of Darwin's most profound insights was to realize that species are statistical phenomena. Previously, European taxonomists believed that all species were distinct and unrelated and that for every species there was an ideal type. Variations within the species (an organism that diverged from the idea) were considered signs of damage, decadence, or some other imperfection. Darwin's genious was to explain why variation is actually a good thing -- because variation provides the fodder for natural selection, and what is a variant today might be a new species tomorrow. If we define micro and macroevolution as distinct, don't we run into the specious "missing link" problem? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your missing link concern? Graft 16:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only reason people ever thought there was a "missing link" is because they misunderstood the Darwinian view of species as statistical phenomena. Thinking that species are real, discrete things, they assume that in a transition from one species to another there must be one transitional form (the missing link between the two species). In fact we all know there is no "missing link," there is no single transitional form, because the transformation from one species to another occurs through the interaction of variation and natural selection over many generations. This process is simultaneously microevolution and macroevolution. Or, to put it another way, "microevolution" is what we call it when we choose to look at a relatively small sample taken from a relatively short time-span, and "macroevolution" is what we call it when we look at a relatively large sample from a relatively long time span. We choose the scale of our research. But objectively, it is the same thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bickering

On my user discussion page, Graft writes "Your argument that scientists are sometimes wrong is irrelevant." I believe you need to check your logic if you are thinking that this has no relevance with evolution, Graft. Scientists in history have FREQUENTLY been wrong. The scientists is Galileo's day were convinced that our solar system possessed a geocentric nature (planets revolved around the earth,) while Galileo himself hypothesized that it was Copernican (planets around sun.) Most European thinkers in the late 15th century believed the earth was flat until Columbus proved that it was round. Be careful, sir, when you say that I am ignorant. Just because you know a few greek symbols and a thing or two about biology does not mean that you are the epoch of wisdom. Notice that you are the one that has fired the personal comments, not I. I respect your education, but keep in mind that just because you were indoctrinated with the religion of evolution does not mean that evolution is the explanation for all living things; if you would like to refer to this as "species," then go ahead, but in this article, I see a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life. There is no problemo there! That is science! Great! Fantastic! (*Applauds*) Because considering the lack of proof and abundance of disproof for evolution, YOU CAN'T CALL IT ANYTHING MORE THAN A THEORY!!! And a theory is indeed scientific. I'm OK with that! The problem here is a three sentence paragraph in the introduction of this article that is so incoherent and deceptive with presenting the important details of evolution as a theory. Once again - I will promptly retire after that is corrected. Salva31 9:57 10 Apr, 2005
Evolution is not a religion, regardless of what indoctrination you have recieved. You obviously lack knowledge of what a theory is. Did you know that General Relativity is a theory? Pretty much EVERYTHING in science is theory, because ANYTHING can be disproven... in theory. In practice, however, we most likely have some things right, completely, totally, and utterly right. In most cases, we probably know a subset.
Ironically, evolution is quite possibly among the best theories science has at the moment. We know that certain parts of it are almost certainly correct, and that other parts at least describe a large number of subsets.
We DO know that creatures change over time (evolve), and we DO know that natural selection and sexual selection are at least two major components of it. It is pretty much impossible to dispute that in any reasonable manner, and no one has made any sort of good attempt to falsify either in a scientific manner. The fossil record supports evolution very well indeed, and in the scientific community it is the ONLY theory. It is at the very center of biology; all of biology works, occurs, is consistant because, and is explained by evolution.
Your belief that "theory" makes it a lesser thing is flawed. Additionally, your example of Galelio is ironic because it was the church which suppressed him, just as it has attempted (and failed) to suppress evolution, because it undermines their authority. Titanium Dragon 04:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, before relying on the Galileo story, you should read up on it. He was really excommunicated for calling the pope an idiot, not because he said the Earth orbits the Sun. Of course, I am simplifying this, but the Roman Catholic Church gets a bad rep for something they didn't really do. Then again, everything comes through the lens of history, now doesn't it :-D. (Oh, and I'm not a Catholic) --Ignignot 18:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with trying to draw a line between macroevolution and microevolution is that you have to determine at what point "speciation" occurs. Problem number one is the definition of species - do morphologically identical birds which do not respond to each other's calls constitute a species (since they will not interbreed if they don't recognise that the other bird is trying to breed)? If it's hard to draw the line between species, it's hard to draw the line between the process leading to speciation and the process leading to change within a species. The second problem is that of sympatric speciation. If you can have sympatric speciation (which you can) then you can have macroevolution without the sort of separation that Adam was talking about.

I was not assuming allopatric speciation. Anyway, that's trivial (in some ways). Sympatric speciation is where things are really interesting. AdamRetchless

As for "niche creation", again, we have the problem of defining the niche. Does niche creation lead to speciation, or does speciation cause niche creation? [At this point I will not get into the debate over neutral theory (in ecology), but it adds a whole new dimension to this]. Guettarda 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how the niche is created, all that matters is that two species can't occupy the same niche in a stable manner. Anyway, I think this gets back to why the "micro/macro" section exists in the first place. It seems to be a place for evolutionists to simply assert that creationists are wrong, without any real scientific content. In such a case, I think we should merge it with "speciation and extinction" AdamRetchless 13:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I might disagree with that. Hubbell's neutral theory suggests just that - that functionally identical species can coexist. Chesson's lottery model actually allows pretty much stable coexistence between identical species so long as there is dispersal limitation. As for micro/macro - they are real differences, the problem is only how you define the boundary - and that is a big problem, but only for people who work along the border. Micro is real because there are lots of lab-type reductionists who wouldn't know a real plant or animal if they say them (unless you're talking about C. elegans, Drosophila or Arabidopsis, and then only sometimes). Micro is very much the study of the "possible", while macro is the study of what works (has worked) in the real world. So, although creationists often say they accept micro and not macro, the problem is that micro is actualy far more of a challenge to creationism than macro is. Guettarda 14:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Offtopic discussion removed. check page history)

This is in fact not a discussion forum, public or otherwise. Please take this discussion to such a forum. Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 19:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I said following the OP in this discussion, this page is a forum for discussing how to write this encyclopaedia entry. I'm sure many people would be happy to educate you at IIDB. Joe D (t) 19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand there are many more productive things we could be discussing here. These arguments have been had before. How about creating a subpage for this nonsense and so the real discussions don't get drowned out? Barnaby dawson 21:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum :-) Kim Bruning 21:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course its not. However, talk pages are for discussion of enhancing page content. Now that function is being undermined by a few users who insist on making poor arguments regarding creationism. This is a problem that isn't limited to this page. The question is "How can we deal with the problem without compromising the principles of wikipedia?"
What's been done is a purge of much of creationist talk on this talk page. That is hardly the answer to the problem. I suggest rather that we create a section/subpage to deal within creationist issues with the article. That way when people are looking at the talk page it won't be a total mess. I suggest that any material that falls under that heading is moved to that section. Barnaby dawson 08:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is beware of what you wish for. We're not going to be making "free speech zones" on wikipedia though. Folks should fight it out here, but keep it fair and square :) Kim Bruning 10:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I might have missed some offtopic stuff. Feel free to remove any you still see. You can do the same in future, but allow for a little while for discussions to progress, some folks take a little while getting to a point (which might well be valid wrt wikipedia). Kim Bruning 21:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finished Kim's refactoring (removed part of the "bickering" section, but rescued Adam's and my comments about speciation, which were actually part of the prior discussion). Since I was in the process and got an edit conflict I also removed Salva's latest bit in which he insisted that this is a pubic board (again, it's in the archive). See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Guettarda 21:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation 3. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

So you simply remove everything that you disagree with? We were still on topic. This is not a spirit of cooperation! Salva31

I'm sorry Salva but I do not think that your comments to this talk page really qualify either as in "a spirit of cooperation". I think that you have been guilty of many of those things you are accusing others of.
You have broken the above rules in several ways:
  • You've insulted people by the tone you've used in discussion.
  • You've tried to intimidate those who don't agree with you by the shear volume of your text (on the talk page).
  • You've not been civil or calm with your edits.
As such although I have criticised others for deleting much of your text in which you do these things I would support them in moving all such material to a subpage in future. Barnaby dawson 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's not do that. As long as Salva 31 keeps it short and simple and on topic, there shouldn't be a problem in future, right? Kim Bruning 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, to be fair to Salva, I was pretty uncivil to him, I think. Graft 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Graft. This is obviously a debate that is sensitive on both sides. Likewise, I owe you an apology for the contributions I made in escalating the argument.Salva3109:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution

As I understand things, the phrase evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. However, if most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution only tacked on as a secondary concern.

I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct? (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.)

Please offer your ideas and thoughts at Talk:Evolutionary creationism. Thanks. RK 20:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

RK, would Pierre Teilhard de Chardin be an example of what you are talking about? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More discussion of evolution as a scientific theory

I removed the uneccessary label inferring that I was ranting against science. That makes me laugh! I love science! Love reading, writing, studying, and learning about it! I am not against science -- I am against lies, and twists in the truth. That is complete nonsense. Your attempts to bullhead me and any threats to your belief system are irrational and have been seen before in this nationwide debate. Post on my talk page plz, so as not to cram this one. Salva31 09:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I took the liberty of removing the inappropriate opinion in this article's introduction. Oversteps guidelines for NPOV. Salva31
Ok, you were bold, that's good. But you can improve on taking it to talk. :-) It might be good to paste the paragraph you removed to here, and disect it, showing what you think is wrong with it. That way we can all pitch in and help you fix :-) Kim Bruning 20:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to, but it will have to wait to tomorrow, as I want to be sure and display my analyses in detail. As of now, my fingers are paralyzed from typing and they need to get their beauty sleep. Oh, and be sure to check out my new and improved user front page. I will eventually use that info to support my position, and don't really feel like it would make sense to clog up this talk page any further by posting it all here. Until then... Salva31 10:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok so I didn't get a chance to save the original, but the only difference between that one and this segment was the somewhat more un-NPOV statement about the Creationist skeptics and so forth. If I am wrong, correct me. Right, so here's round #2: Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and for use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism. I have to admit I'm proud. We're almost there! But not quite.

  1. Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation,
Could there be a slight grammar error there? Can we take out the the after currently? This is a rock-solid, A+ statement about evolution.
  1. and for the use in the science of biology, it has replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.
And here we have the same exact problem in a simply different context. Still a little egregious. Guys, if your theory is legit, it's gonna survive on its own=). No need to try and convert others to your beliefs in a wiki article. We are only in the Information Age, not the Too-Much-Information Age. If you have an argument with this, look at the chromosome table on my user page, and if you need more proof that human beings did not evolve from rocks, then I would be glad to help you out!

Salva31 21:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, this is not about converting anyone to any beliefs - that sentence presents a simple fact. Biologists do not accept Lamarckism or creationism as an explanation for the origin of species. Graft 07:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Graf. I wouldn't delete the "currently" because all scientists understand that a more robust model or theory is always a possibility. But certainly, at this time the modern synthesis is the most robust theory. Moreover, that in the science of biology it has replaced other theories is accurate. Perhaps Alva isn't thoroughly familiar with English grammar. "Is" is normative, not indicative, so it is not trying to "convert anyone" As to Salva's comments about the too-much-information age, chromosomes, and rocks -- I simply do not understand what he is talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How many times do I have to say this, Graft? Not all biologists believe that we came from rocks! Maybe the ones that you know believe this, but making such a bold, unsupported claim is very impulsive on your part. You let the biologists believe what they want to believe and you believe what you want to believe. This has become a very supercilious mantra of yours! We need patient analysists here, not assumptive admonitors. Also, sarcasm is not an effective way to communicate.
Like I say, there's a lot of biologists around here who actually know and work with a lot more biologists. We actually know the number of creationist biologists is negligible. Project Steve has the best take on that claim. Joe D (t) 00:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • When I refer to rocks, I am trying to incite a feel for the slight cheesiness in Neo-Darwinism. What makes more sense? Scientist #1 says "there is evidence for design, so there must be a designer," and scientist #2 says "well, maybe it just took millions and millions and millions and millions of years for all of this to materalize by itself without a creator." You think science isn't science unless it is viewed atheistically?
No, we think science isn't science when it isn't based on the scientific method, especially observation. The argument from design is therefore not scientific. Joe D (t) 00:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The chromosome chart on my user page is a quantitative analysis of the number of chromosomes carried by each of those organisms. And if you really, really need me to explain it, I would be happy to. But look at it one more time and think carefully. Think--"what is Salva trying to prove here?" Salva31 18:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have posted to your UserTalkPage a question about what your quantitative analysis of the number of chromosomes means--if you have a moment. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That Salva knows even less about genetics and molecular biology than about evolution? Like I say, a lot of the people on this talk page actually study, have degrees and doctorates in, do research on and teach biology. Your claims about rocks and chromosome numbers are pretty lame and laughable, showing you don't even know what you're arguing against. Why not start with the Origin of Life page, especially the bit describing the pre-life chemistry of Earth and early replicators, then move on from there. Please do explain what you're trying to prove with the chromosome table, because I'm stuck on which one of the three ludicrous claims it is. Joe D (t) 00:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic. I was being serious. There is a good reason to say that biologists accept the modern synthesis theory of evolution and don't accept creationism. It is true; there may be a handful of practicing biologists who are also creationists, but they are a bare handful, and they are not taken seriously. Few if any of these very, very few creationist biologists would attempt to publish scientific papers disputing evolution, because they are unable to muster scientific arguments that pass the scrutiny of their peers. On the rare occassion when they ARE published (e.g. Behe just published a piece of crap paper in Protein Science) their work is not highly regarded and is torn apart by critics. Graft 00:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joe D, I know enough about your theory to know that it is imagination with a tiny amount of evidence. I glanced at the origin of life page and was not surprised; I have been taught those silly theories ever since I was a freshman in high school. If you are going to resolve by attacking my education, it only makes you look more arrogant. I have not chosen to disclose my educational background, nor will I until this argument is over. You are making quite a gamble there by saying such things, my friend 8-|

I am not attacking your education, I am attacking your qualifications to speak on this subject, as clearly demonstrated by your poor arguments and the fact that you are continuing to avoid arguments. I am well aware that my reply to you may look arrogant to somebody who isn't aware of the background of the argument or the fact that creationism and evolution are not equally valid explanations. But I don't care, I'm tired of you misrepresenting science and trying to put anti-scientific POV in this article. Your qualifications would be of some minor interest, but they don't change the fact that you are yet to make a valid argument against evolution or for creation on this page. Joe D (t) 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it just because I'm a Yank?

  1. I am not avoiding arguments, you are the one saying that I am avoiding arguments. Which arguments do you think I have avoided? I'm arguing with you right now, aren't I? DUH!
See above, e.g. chromosomes.
  1. I am not anti-science! I am against using lies and misrepresentation of information to support your theory. You are an imbecile if you think that having an atheistic viewpoint of biology makes that field more or less scientific, and you are an imbecile if you think that the foundations of science collapse without the theory of evolution.
Who was taking an atheistic viewpoint of biology? You think evolution is atheistic? Evolution simply does not invoke a designer, it does not need to, natural selection is a very powerful imitator of a designer. I didn't say science collapsed without evolution, I am saying evolution is science and creationism is not. Creationism does not follow the scientific method and is not supported by evidence, the study of evolution does follow the scientific method and evolution is supported by mountains of evidence (and you are an imbecile if you think it is not), therefore you are anti-science in accepting a non-scientific idea as a scientific theory.
  1. We are making NO PROGRESS because you are the one that keeps attacking me and my reasons to have a discussion about editing this article, which I originally was going about in a completely appropriate manner. This is against Wikipedia regulations, considered trolling if I am correct. Every time I try to present information for discussion, you have attempted to inferiorate me just because I am skeptical of your theory. This is getting old and I really really wish we could just get back on topic, but I am being forced to defend my credibility instead.
Your credibility is questioned because you are showing an extreme ignorance of the topic you are attempting to edit, if you didn't make glaring errors such as those above (starting by getting evolution mixed up with cosmology and then thinking evolution is atheistic isn't a good start)
  1. A respectable scientist considers all possibilities and keeps an open mind. You are not acting respectable or like a scientist, but I will pray for you!
No, a respectable scientist does not. A respectable scientist favours those explanations that are supported by the evidence, and are consistant with other theories and evidence. Evolution is supported by evidence and is consistant, it follows the scientific method, creationism is not supported by evidence and is not consistant. Evolution and creationism are not equal scientific ideas, which is why the overwhelming majority of biologists reject creationism.
  1. Use of the scientific method does not rely on the existence/non-existence of a Designer.
No, and science says nothing about the existence of a designer. It does however show us how life on earth arose without a conscious purposeful designer, through evolution by natural selection. Joe D (t) 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Are you finished now so that we can have a humane conversation?

Salva31 21:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here is another attempt on Graft's part to inferiorate the Creationist viewpoint. That is YOUR opinion, Mr. Graft! I could just throw up my arms and say some similar things about evolution, but I won't because some of those words are against my theistic religion, which establishes a code of ethics for me! So let's leave the impulsive, derogatory comments at the door and talk about science!
Scientifically the creationist viewpoint is quite clearly inferior, as it is not in any way a scientific theory or explanation. We would all love to be talking about science, but so far you've been more interested in making silly anti-evolution claims. Joe D (t) 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How does evolution explain fireflies, who use 100% of the energy they produce for making light? Did you know that human beings cannot even explain or replicate this? We can create light, yes, but most of the energy is used for heat, even in flourescent lightbulbs. Did you know that there is actually a species of bee which is the only animal that can pollinate the vanilla plant? How does evolution explain that? Anomalous? Salva31 17:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fireflies have evolved over millions of years and they have been selected in an environment where calories mean the difference between life and death. Light bulbs have evolved over a century in an environment where it's not worth manufacturers time or money on the R&D involved in making light-bulbs more efficient. The co-evolution of the bee and flower can be explained in several different ways: other species may have come and gone, there may have been an arms race in which the bee evolved ever greater ways to exploit the flower while doing the least work itself, and the flower evolved ever greater ways to exploit the bee while doing the least work, producing the least nectar etc itself, while other insect pollinators just stuck to the easier flowers. The flower may have developed ultra-violet or some other kind of markings which appealed particularly to the one species of insect, and the two from then on co-evolved. These are not in any way problems for evolutionary biologists. Joe D (t) 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Salva, fireflies are not 100% efficient. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are highly efficient, but not 100%. And yes, human beings can both explain and replicate it; if you were to look in the firefly article, you'd realize that the genes used to make it have been spliced into a number of organisms. Not only is this an argument from lack of imagination, but a poor one because we do understand it. As for the vanilla plant - that isn't even highly unusual, many plants are reliant on specific species to pollenate them. It is beneficial to the plants to have exclusive pollenators. As for having only one species - they'd have to compete with the bees for the flowers to evolve to pollenate them. Titanium Dragon 18:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Light bulbs did not evolve, they were improved through intelligent design. Perhaps that is the problem that we are having here -- you seem to think that anytime something improves or is improved, it evolves. It would definately be worth any manufacturers' time if they could produce a light bulb that used 100% of its energy for light rather than heat. This would remove the need to make different types (Ex: type A, B) of bulbs, because they would not have to worry about the danger of fire resulting from an overheated lightbulb. In fact, I would be willing to bet that an invention such as that would be just as revolutionary as the invention of the original, if not more! I'd say you have a grand problem on your hands if you cannot explain how this tiny creature was able to muster its evolution superpowers to perform such a feat.

If this universe were subjected to the rules of randomality, it would inevitably fall apart. There is order and incomprehensible complexity everywhere we look. Salva31 20:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not really. You seem to misunderstand entropy. Entropy is simply the universe moving towards a uniform energy state (see the heat death article). You can decrease local entropy but only at the cost of increasing net entropy in the universe, at least according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, and we have found nothing which violates this except (perhaps) the Big Bang. Titanium Dragon 18:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was playing along and using "evolve" to mean change (and only change, the discussing the issues of improvement would be yet another abuse of this talk page. It may be worth a manufacturers time, if time was free, but research and development costs money, in this case more money than would be generated by the product. Do you actually have any evidence that fireflies did not evolve, or are you going to carry on with this argument from incredulity? Saying "I don't see how it could have evolved" isn't very convincing. Joe D (t) 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's the same thing as you saying "I don't see how a Creator created this universe." It wasn't meant for you to judge my opinion about the evidence I presented, but the actual evidence itself.

If such a lightbulb was invented, the sales volume drawn from its market demand would most certainly exceed its research costs!! -- this shows how much you are refusing to recognize the awesomeness behind an extraordinary characteristic of such a tiny animal. This is evidence of enginuity, Joe, not evidence of randomness! Salva31 21:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not the same. Nobody is saying that they don't see how a creator created the universe, infact, many have no problem uniting evolution with their religion. All I am saying is that we do not need to invoke a creator to explain the diversity of life. That is not an argument from incredulity, it is simply that evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life.
Nobody is saying that fireflies arose by randomness alone, and saying such shows yet again that you're working on a fundimental misunderstanding of what evolution and natural selection are. Natural selection is the exact opposite of randomness, it is the non-random mating of individuals determined by their phenotypes. This is where the issue of questioning your right to be posting here arises: you are arguing against a straw man of evolution, demonstrating your lack of background knowledge.
Do you know what the market for a heat-free bulb would be? Probabaly small, because they would almost certainly cost work, and work considerably differently, to normal bulbs, to pay back the cost of R&D. Joe D (t) 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget, such a lightbulb would run off of chemcials rather than electricity, and thus we would have to constantly put more chemicals into the light bulbs in order to keep them working. As people are lazy, I doubt it would be much of an innovation - sure, it doesn't increase heat, and some scientists would use them, but for normal uses its far easier man-power wise to just use electric bulbs of various sorts.

PS. I have removed the additional claim that evolution has replaced, or ruled out Creationism. Notice that this does absolutely nothing to the subject at hand -- in fact it makes it a little more NPOV. Look up the definition of science if you think that I am being anti-science. I am not anti-science and would be more than happy to educate anyone about the reasons that this is an inappropriate statement to make in an encyclopedia. Salva31 21:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, considering the demonstrations above of how you don't understand what science or evolution is. Joe D (t) 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Look, I'm not stating my opinion, i'm stating a fact! FACT! Evolution is nearly universally accepted by biologists. Period. That's true. Do you dispute the truth of that statement? If so, on what basis? I have plenty of evidence to support it - the great body of scientific literature, for example, in favor of evolution, while there is maybe one or two papers in crap journals arguing against evolution in the past 50+ years. Graft 03:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to my edit?

Could someone tell me why I was reverted.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you'll take the time to read our Introduction and the material linked therefrom on how you can contribute. From the look of your contributions page, this might be the first article you've worked on. Because of the nature of the subject, this article is frequently highly controversial. It has also been listed as a featured article, so many editors keep an eye on it to make sure that it remains of high quality. An article like this is a difficult spot to start editing Wikipedia.
Please sign your Talk page comments, so we know who you are without diddling around with the history. You can use the notation --~~~~ to sign a comment with your name (or IP address, since you're not logged in) and the date. You might want to also log in so that your work will be recognized.
I did not revert your contribution. However, the editor who did left a comment: "revert/casual comments by anon." While it is not entirely clear what s/he meant by this, my supposition is that s/he believed your contribution was not in keeping with the tone or content of an encyclopedia article.
Some of the claims that you make contradict other material which has been cited to primary sources. Other claims represent what we tend to call "POV" content, meaning, opinions or speculations offered from an idiosyncratic point of view. They are also couched in idiosyncratic language. For instance, it is not clear what it means to call evolution a "force of nature" or a "semi-conscious trait" -- but this is clearly not the ordinary use of the expressions force or consciousness. Because this article is about a natural science topic, we're going to be careful to use scientific and philosophical terms accurately -- and in the ordinary senses of the words, evolution is neither a force, nor is it conscious or "semi-conscious".
Finally, since this specific article is about evolution and not about religious opinions of evolution or the like, some of the material is simply off-topic here, and particularly in the introduction. The introduction of an article needs to be about the topic itself, and not about outsider responses to that topic: for instance, we would not start the article on Christianity by saying that Muslims consider the doctrine of the trinity to be "sacrilege".
There is another article about the creation-evolution controversy, and I believe you will find it is quite well-researched and shows many examples of how an encyclopedia can approach the topic from a standpoint that reflects many points of view. --FOo 03:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon's comments/philosophy

Entry from anon user 69.208.212.163 on April 17, 2005 (see above).

"Evolution is what one may call a semi-conscious trait. Semi-conscious meaning in the sense of a natural order. Or perhaps it IS in order of a higher consciousness. At any rate evolution is not accepted by most people. It was and still is considered sacrilege in the sense of a personal God or have you. The scientific community at this date accepts evolution as fact and conducts scientific experiments proving it."

Although I reverted your entries, I also moved it here to provide you the opportunity to respond. Why? The philosophical questions relating to evolution are often discussed here and (as above) are dealt with on another page as well. You managed to select a complicated, somewhat controversial and often edited article as one of your first edits. Please read the ongoing discussion on this page and then expand on your thoughts before attempting to edit the actual article. The suggestions above are wonderful Please also read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), dealing with fact versus opinion. We welcome your thoughtful comments on this and other discussion pages and NPOV edits in articles. Look forward to working with you.WBardwin 05:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It happened again.

Im not an expert on evolution. No one is (except Charles Darwin-and he aint talking)No sooner did I leave this page it was reverted by a second person-with no explanation!

  • Sorry. I was looking up some information, and this edit did not make sense. Can you explain please? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Acually, there are quite a few experts on evolution in biology departments and labs and other places around the world who know much more about evolution than Charles Darwin ever did. Yellow Ant 04:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debating evolution

Honestly, folks, the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article -- not to debate a dogmatic creationist. Can we focus on the article, now? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. We were discussing improvements to the article.
  2. I am not a dogmatist; just open-minded. Most of your ranting has consisted of rash opinion.
  3. STOP removing my comments. I don't think it's coincidence that the rebuttals which I have felt to be my most thought-out have been relocated to God knows where?
  4. This article is not NPOV. The sentence and the picture don't topple your theory. They have very little to do with your theory unless you have the intention to indoctrinate others by using slanted journalism. That is slanted journalism.
  5. Why are those two petty things so important!? IS IT WORTH ALL OF THIS?

Sincerely, Salva 16:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am fed up with this nonsense. We could be writing an encyclopedia, but instead we are arguing about a very ridiculous itty-bitty error that in no way effects the happy theory of evolution. My time and yours is being wasted here. This is where we draw the line. If you want your theory to stick around, keep the opinions to yourself and stop attacking others' religions. If there is a problem with this, then the only other thing I can say is that another agenda is present other than education here, and this IS NOT the place to work towards it. Get off your high-horse about it, because we've all had enough. The sentence in the intro and the picture are going bye-bye. That is all that I want and then I am on to bigger and better things aside from the evolution article on Wikipedia! I've had a great time, though, and it was a pleasure to learn about all of you. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

Deepest regards, Salva 16:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reciprocal relationship

In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship.

I realize this sentence was probably the result of edit warring, but I'm not sure that it entirely makes sense. How is the relationship reciprocal? How does the theory affect the fact? I'm feel sure that there must be a better way of expressing the idea at hand. — Asbestos | Talk 21:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sure you are right that it can be explained more clearly. But the point is that "facts" are not just out there; what is considered a "fact" is one because of theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that theory is the mechanism by which we describe and explain the facts. Theory doesn't change what the facts are, but it helps us to know their implications and their range. "Reciprocal" suggests that the facts are influenced by the theory, which is flatly false -- rather, theory gives us a framework in which to connect all the dots provided by observations of fact.
For instance, the action of terrestrial gravity is a simple and readily-demonstrated fact. The equations of the theory of gravity describe and explain that fact. An important development of the theory of gravity was the unification of terrestrial gravity with celestial gravity -- Newton's determination that the same force governs the falling of objects on earth and the motions of the planets.
Likewise, the action of evolution is a fact observed in experiment, taxonomy, and the fossil record; the theory of evolution describes and explains the fact. The modern synthesis, or unification of evolution with genetics, is of similar importance to Newton's synthesis: it shows that an even wider body of facts can be described in a single theory than Darwin could have imagined. --FOo 22:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evolution as a fact

How about stating that in some ways, evolution is more than an extremely well supported theory. It is a fact in the sense that it be directly observed in a laboratory for bacteria or insects. Ultramarine 21:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we need to distinguish between two meanings of "evolution." In the simplest sense that evolution means change, it is indeed a fact. But when we use the word "evolution" as shorthand for the modern synthesis, it is not a fact, it is a theory. The problem is that this approach might reenforce the commen misperception that "fact" and "theory" are opposed. The problem is not that people do not think evolution is a fact, but that people do not understand what a theory is! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you need to learn exactly what 'fact' means, Slrubstein. In the simple sense "Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed" - Evolution - the nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators - IS a fact.

Evolution is a fact. The mechanism by which it happens is a theory. The Rev of Bru

Err. I think he got it exactly right, and he said just what you did. He was just more careful about varying uses of the word "evolution". Graft 22:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, he said that what happens in real life; in nature - is 'just a theory.' Its not. its a fact. The means by which it happens is a theory.

Suggestion: "Although the mechanism of change, and the set of general rules which govern it, is a theory--that is, a well-supported model of how evolution works--the notion that ancestral forms evolve and give rise to new forms and new species, and that this is how the diversity of species came into existence, is an observable fact. We cannot pace out the distance from the Earth to the Sun, but we can measure it and state the fact that it is approximately 93 million miles away." Or is that too much like counterargument? Maybe strike the Earth/Sun analogy? Demi T/C 21:45, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but you misunderstand my point about the reciprocal relationship between fact and theory. If "ancestral forms evolve into new species" is a fact, it is a fact only because the theory of evolution makes it so. People seem to think facts are more real than theories, when many would argue that theories are much stronger and more important than facts, at least during the normative phase of a given science (whatshisname would say that paradign shifts occur when facts overwhelm a theory). I still think that the real battle is to explain to readers why saying that "Evolution is a robust theory" actually says a lot more than saying "evolution is a fact." The problem is not that evolution is not a "fact," the problem is that creationists really have no idea what "theory" means to a scientist. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thomas Kuhn? Joe D (t) 22:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"it is a fact only because the theory of evolution makes it so." I don't think so. A theory is an intellectual construct--an explanation. A model, as the current definition has it. Models don't make things true. In any case, I don't see why adding a fact detracts from the article or the explanation of what the "theory of evolution" is. Demi T/C 23:23, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Yeah, Kuhn. Thanks! As to Demi, facts are intellectual constructs too. What do you think a fact is? Whatever humans perceive? Empiricism has an important role in science, but most philosophers of science are very wary of popular notions of what a fact is. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Those (like me and you, I presume) believe that the earch actually rotates around the sun, but people did not consider this a fact until Copernicus came up with a powerful theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • That's fine; as I said, I was talking about adding to, not removing from, the article. Demi T/C 02:16, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Lose the fish

For the record, I think the fish should go. I never liked it, and it isn't important, extremely relevant, or worth fighting over. Plus it's more than a bit biased to put something so blatantly anti-Christian on the Evolution page. Graft 22:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Besides which, it's evolutionist as opposed to having anything to do with evolution ;-) Kim Bruning 22:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it as anti-Christian (I'm not offended, I find it hilarious) - maybe anti-people with no sense of humour. It is, of course, an aspect of the culture wars, not of the science, but the culture wars are all over this page (and the other evo- pages). Count this as a "neutral" vote, for the time being. Guettarda 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From the point of view of reducing friction (as Temtem and Joe D pointed out), and as a sign of good faith to Salva31 (since it was prominent among his list of complaints) I think I should really change my opinion from neutral to support of Graft's proposal. Guettarda 23:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it should go, it reinforces the misunderstanding of Evolution held by people like Salva, that is, that Evolution is a philosophical (and ethical etc) worldview rather than a scientific theory, and that it is the opposite of Christianity. Joe D (t) 23:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It's not anti-Christian in the sense that many Christians are not opposed to the concept of evolution, but it is meant to be a source of irritation to dispensationalists other Young Earth Creationists. In other words, it's represents the political goals of those who oppose creationists, rather than the scientific study of evolution, and isn't really appropriate. -- Temtem 23:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well. It doesn't really have anything to do with the subject. Demi T/C 23:21, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
I love that fish with legs. The first time I saw it--as a bumper sticker--I thought it was one of the wittiest and wisest pieces of political art--so efficient, minimalist, straight to the point. Hence, I personally agree with all the rah-rah, I won, and You're a dummy that the fish with legs means. But. My job is rather to get the creationists to deal with reality--whatever that is. And unfortunately that fish makes it easier for the creationists to avoid the reality of evolution and say--"See you are just another backslider fighting against your own conscience. You don't even have your own symbol. You have our symbol--defaced. THAT says something about your dark heart!" So this is not a vote--because, even though that symbol violates NPOV, it would be valuable for any visiting high-school student to be able to see the religious faith of the evolutionists in action. For That is reality, even if an unfortunate and unnecessary reality. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes. I change to vote with Guettarda to remove the image. 8(( ---Rednblu | Talk 23:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

me too. What is good for a bumper-sticker is not necessarily good for an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too agree. Since the fish is a symbol of Christianity, the parody implicitly equates Christianity with creationism which is unfair to Christians generally. (But I also agree that it is funny.)
—wwoods 00:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article should link to Darwin fish, as there is a pretty clear connection. I'm not sure the image is needed here. Still, I have to wonder -- does the Darwin fish mock Christianity, or does it mock the sort of militant "bombs-and-Jesus" crowd who (these days) turn a "support the war" ribbon sideways to make a blood-defiled ichthus? No one can mock Jesus any more thoroughly than that, I fear .... --FOo 00:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The war is off-topic. The fish mocks Christian Young Earth Creationists. There may be overlap with this group and a "bombs-and-Jesus" group you propose, but that's besides the point. -- Temtem 01:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You all know where my vote stands =). Salva 02:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I, too, agree with its removal. It is an amusing design but not appropriate for Evolution. One, because regardless of one's belief in evolution, I think it could be offensive to modify a religious symbol for another use. And two, it tends to promote a "religion vs. science" conflict which I feel is unnecessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The fish is extinct now, and it should stay that way. --Hob Gadling 10:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the Darwin fish. It is quite relevant and removing it is censorship. It is probably the single most recognizable symbol of evolution in the US at the very least, and it is quite appropirate where it is. Evolution IS a part of popular culture, and that is the section it was under. Besides, it'd be kind of like removing the Christmas tree from the Christmas page, because it is not a Christian symbol, rather a pagan symbol the Christians "defaced". Same could in theory go for the cross (a defiled ankh). Okay, maybe not the same degree, but same idea - just because it is "offensive" to one group doesn't mean it should be removed if it is relevant, and the Darwin fish is probably the best symbol of the cultural war in the United States over the issue. Titanium Dragon 11:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon. A number of the posts above have stated that it should be removed because it's not appropriate in an article on Evolution. But the article is not just on the science. The fish was placed in the section Social effect of evolutionary theory, where it is highly relevent. The social effects of the theory have indeed played out along religious/secular lines, among other effects, and the image is a strong symbol of that division.
... it reinforces the misunderstanding of Evolution that Evolution is a philosophical worldview rather than a scientific theory
...It doesn't really have anything to do with the subject.
...The war is off-topic.
...it tends to promote a "religion vs. science" conflict which I feel is unnecessary.
All of these views disregard the fact that the "religion vs. science conflict" is the point of the Evolution and religion section.
— Asbestos | Talk 11:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removing the fish is not "censorship," unless someone here is acting on behalf of a government agency without us knowing about it. We are all here trying to create the best, NPOV article possible. The suggestion that edits with which one disagrees are "censorship" is a cheap shot. -- Temtem 17:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the fish is not particularly relevent. It is a symbol I have only ever seen on wikipedia. If we could find another image which is more relevent to replace it that would be good. I don't think the question as to whether this image is offensive is particularly important when deciding on whether to keep it. I do think that its relevence is and this picture seems only relevent in the US. Barnaby dawson 13:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should lose the fish. Like Barnaby dawson, I have only ever seen it on wikipedia, and I live in the United States. This is hardly a universal symbol of evolution. I would expect something more like a common image in anthropology - human's ancestors walking towards modern man. Only that doesn't fit exactly because while humans are the end product of evolution, so are all other living species. Maybe something more like beginning with a single celled organism, and then branching off into a living representative from each biological kingdom. Or just go back to darwin because he was so influential. Alternatively you could put several pictures of animals that are adapted to their environment in an interesting way (ie, that bug that looks like a stick, hummingbirds, polar bears). In any case, put me down for agree. --Ignignot 14:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The arguments I'm seeing here are twofold; a couple people have claimed to have never seen it before and live in the US, which suprises me as having travelled accross the country I have seen at least one in every state I've been through. The second argument is that it is offensive to Christians. The former is a valid reason to remove it because it isn't important enough; the latter is not. Wikipedia is not about not offending people; it is about informing people in a neutral manner. The Darwin Fish being related to evolution in popular culture is NPOV; if it is important enough (and I think it is) I think it would be fine to include it. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that it should not be included. Titanium Dragon 15:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the Darwin fish should go because it's utterly unknown outside the US and seems to have become associated with the creationism/evolution ding-dongs that are exclusive to that country. I live in the UK and to us evolution is a scientific process, not an ideological banner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • "Ding-dongs," eh? 8)) That is almost as funny as the fish with legs.  :)) Sure gets my funny bone. ---Rednblu | Talk 16:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think offense is the issue; it's bias. The fish pokes fun at one particular group; there's a way to present that neutrally, but it's place is not in this article, and I don't think it's fulfilling that role here. And, more to the point, it's not important to the article. It doesn't NEED to be here; its removal doesn't take away vital information about the science of evolution or its social context. If we need an image for the "Evolution and Religion" section, we can make a number of other choices. An image of Darrow and Bryan from the Scopes trial, for example. Graft 17:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sounded like a good idea to me so I found one. I reckon it can be used under fair use rules. Its may even be out of copyright as it was taken 80 years ago. Barnaby dawson 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool. But my name is Graft, not Grant! Graft 11:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another reason for not including the Darwin fish: If the Darwin fish is relevant as an example of the "religion vs. science" conflict, then so is the creationist "Truth" fish gobbling up the Darwin fish and any of the other number of similar symbols out there. It reduces the quality of the article to get into the war of symbols here, rather than keep the focus of the article on the larger issues. -- Temtem 18:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Darwin fish is not a universal or even widely-recognized symbol of evolution, any more than the hideous American Atheists logo is a universal or widely-recognized symbol of atheism. The fish is a parody, a joke -- albeit a pointed joke about a serious issue. It does not mean that the fish-displayer worships Darwin, or hates Christianity, or is a "secular humanist" or what-have-you.

Illustrating the Darwin fish in this article is not "bias" or an NPOV problem, either. It simply is not directly relevant to this article, which is about evolution itself -- not the jokes and religious arguments that people have peripherally connected to evolution. There's already a perfectly good article entitled Darwin fish. For that matter, it would seem to make sense to present the fish on our article Creation-evolution controversy, since it does represent a (jocular) position in the discourse of evolution and religion.

But for heck's sake, don't take the fish too seriously. It isn't a flag; it isn't a swastika; it isn't a cross (an implement of capital punishment -- if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians might display an electric chair). It's a joke. --FOo 22:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allele frequency "between generations" vs. "over time"

It seems to me that evolution is not a "change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next" (emphasis mine) but rather over time. Whether we define the time in generations or with conventional time (days/years) depends on the particular use of the concept and so from one generation to the next may be too specific. Are there any biologists out there who can comment? Zensufi 03:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There need not be well-defined generations. However, maybe the intent was to make it clear that the process involved turnover of individuals (or a least production of new ones). Josh Cherry 03:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The dinstinction of moving across generations (there is no "between" generations) is based on the idea that individuals do not pass on acquired traits a la Lamarckian evolution. That is, alleles do not change in an individual throughout its life, therefore evolution must occur in the difference between an individual and its offspring. "Over time" might be seen as misleading in this light, whereas "across generations" or "from one generation to the next" are more specific on this point. siafu 04:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I see. The issue though is that the frequency of alleles changes much more frequently than the time it takes for the species to move from one generation to the next. Is there a way to rephrase the clause so that it will not mislead in either of the ways we have mentioned? Zensufi 19:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You want to be careful about the use of 'species' here. The definition talks about 'populations' meaning those individuals that do inter-breed, not those that might. In a population the allele frequencies do indeed change at every death and birth (whether plant or animal), but this is still driven by generational change. Without the birth of new individuals you do have evolution occuring, but it is also extinction of the population — KayEss | talk 05:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think population geneticists would describe the process as "from one generation to the next". Joe D (t) 20:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable shorthand. Obviously "generation" is not a discrete unit - everyone doesn't spawn at once (except for cicadas) - but still, I think "generations" does a good job of conveying the inheritance aspect of evolution, which "over time" would not. Graft 20:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "allele frequency within the population over time"? --JimWae 21:09, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Evolution occurs between generations, not over time. Bacteria evolve more quickly than elephants, not because they are somehow more prone to evolove, but because they differ in generation times. Guettarda 21:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


If any of you guys actually think you're swaying each other the way you want them to, then neither of you are as smart as I thought. All of your arguments are amazingly cool and informational, but they are all different. Realize that all of you are being one sided in your own way...so you technically have more in common than you think. Evolution and creation both speak of how life came to be so why are we fighting? Unless one day somebody can actually PROVE anything to be 100% true or quit turning to a book that the Jews wrote, then we should respect the many ways people view this topic. Taylor, April 28 2005

Huh? What book by Jews? Does it matter whether or not Darwin, Mayr, Dobzhansky, or Mendel were Jews or not? Guattarda, Steinsky, Variable, and others I am sure are correct. "change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next" is the standard definition. "A change in the genetic structure of a population" is also a reasonable definition, but I prefer the one we have myself. When people say "over time" they must mean "over the course of many generations" but the key is the difference from one generation to the next. I have no idea what Taylor is trying to say, this is pretty clear-cut. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think he means the Torah, which is the basis for Biblical creationism. Graft 02:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, or more specifically, Genesis. -- Temtem 02:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Taylor, I am not certain what you are referring to, but it seems that this debate was actually resolved quite nicely. I know I was convinced. I think we all agreed that "between generations" was better than "over time". — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Most definitely. I have no idea what Taylor is talking about either, but as the one person on the other side of the above debate, I'll second that the debate was resolved nicely. I objected to a specific wording, and then people explained to me why that one was used and not mine. Although the wording I objected to may not be perfect, they demonstrated why it's a hell of a lot better than mine. This has nothing at all to do with creation vs. evolution or the bible. Zensufi 15:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While we should respect each other I disagree that we have to respect each other's opinions. This is a scientific topic, there is a best current model, and it should dominate all discussion, with evidence for and against it. Just because some hypothetical person thinks that all organisms are brought by storks when their parents love each other does not mean we have to include it in the article. Too many people have been brought up to think that all opinions are valid. It just isn't true. --Ignignot 13:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Why is an active discussion being archived?

It was getting pretty silly. I thought it was pretty much "done". Revert if you like. Graft 17:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Barnaby dawson 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the intention is not silly, and that is to give our readers a clear idea of what they are reading. Evolutionists have walked a very fine threshold in the past, and they still do it today. I do see your point now that you have ellaborated, buuuut -- well, approximate is a better word. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. =) Salva 19:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Could you just stop arguing? I mean face it, neither of you are going to prove the other wrong, no matter how much evidence either of you have to back up your theory. Its pointless arguing about your two different and strong opinions when you already know that neither of you will sway the other over to your own. Yes, both of your views are amazing and well supported, but your both wasting your time arguing. It has been very helpful in reading your views, thank you. I wish to withhold my name.

I just archived. The reason to archive is that the talk page gets too long. Nothing is deleted, and anyone can consult the archives easily. A personal observation: talk pages are for discussing changes to the article. There was an awful lot of discussion for relatively few changes to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Darwinian" natural selection and "Darwinian" evolution

I am unhappy with these recent changes by User:Andriesb [9].

  1. If you don't want to call Darwin the father of "evolutionary theory" (which is reasonable) I think you should call him the father of "modern evolutionary theory" or "the modern synthesis". Calling him the father of "Darwinian evolutionary theory" is too narrow and gives a false impression of the scope.
  2. "Darwinian Natural Selectin" suggests that there are several competing theories of natural selection. This is misleading.
  3. I don't understand this insertion at the end of the second paragraph: The second use of the word evolution assumes there are no alternatives to Natural Selection as the principal mechanism causing evolution.

Guettarda 16:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. -- Temtem 17:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I get your point and will reverse the change
  2. Did you read "Darwinian Natural Selection? I wrote: "In Darwinism, Natural Selection is the principal etc.
  3. Evolution should not be confused with the theory (of the mechanism) of natural selection. The Darwinian theory of the mechanism by which evolution supposedly takes place has to many become a dogma. Evolution is in my eyes no longer a theory because the fossil records are just too overwhelming. How exactly the genome changes to better adapt a species to a new environment however could be explained differently than only by natural selection. That's why I added the extra sentence to make that more explicit. Andriesb 19:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the fossil records are just too overwhelming?" -- Temtem 20:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I mean too many fossils from too many geological periods have been found to rationally deny that evolution took place. Evolution is a fact but what drives it is still a theory.Andriesb 17:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is erroneous to refer to Darwin as the father of modern evolutionary theory, or particularly of the modern synthesis. Moreover, such reference suggests ignorance of what "the modern synthesis" means: namely, the 20th-century synthesis of two separate strains of work in biology: on the one hand, Darwin's theory (evolution by natural selection); and on the other, Mendel's theory (genetics).

Darwin theorized natural selection, sexual selection, and common descent. He did not know anything about genes, and had no concept of genes as the unit of selection or variation. To describe Darwin as having anything directly to do with the modern synthesis is like calling Isaac Newton the father of quantum gravity. :)

Textbooks, and popular histories of scientific fields, have a tendency to exaggerate the role of famous figures of the past, and to treat their work as if it led directly or effortlessly towards the theories and knowledge common today. (See Thomas Kuhn.) One result of this is that we use terms based on those figures' names -- like "Darwinism" -- to refer to ideas that go far beyond those figures' actual knowledge. --FOo 20:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Darwin is still the father of modern evolutionary thought. "Modern" to separate it from pre-Darwinian (like Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin). It crossed my mind as I wrote it that saying "father of the modern synthesis" was perhaps a bit of a stretch - direct lineal antecedent, yes...though people like Fisher, Haldane, Wright, etc., are generally refered to as "architects", not "fathers". "Grandfather of the modern synthesis"?
While what you say is true about the inflated role of "founders" of movements, Darwin is in a class with few others. His insight was pretty amazing - and even though he had inheritance wrong, even there he had some good insights. While Wallace deserves equal billing on the basic theory, Darwin had a lot more depth (and didn't kill whole families of orangutans just to measure them). On the other hand, I would never diminish the role of Fisher, Wright, Haldane and all these other amazing people who actually built evolution into a science. Guettarda 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Darwin is an accessible figure to the public (like Stephen Jay Gould), and his was definitely a seminal work and remains astute to this day. But I'm always astounded at what R.A. Fisher contributed to the study of evolution and to science in general. He's more on par with Euler, in my book. Graft 15:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what is going on here?

The second paragraph deals with Darwin's theory. Someone deleted "Darwin" from the sentence stating that we are all descended from a common ancester, when in fact this is a claim made by Darwin. Then, someone identified the theory of speciation through natural selection with "Darwinism." What the hell is Darwinism? We are talking about theories of evolution, let's stick to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re JeremyA's comment on my talk page, well, thanks. I have no objection to the way you phrase it on my talk page — it is "Darwinism" that I really can't stand. But can you tell me (or just add to the article) who before Darwin claimed descent from a common ancestor? Working within natural science? We aren't talking about Lucretious are we? I have heard philosophers of science argue how Darwin's theory requires common descent. If it was just one of many ideas kicking around before Darwin, I think we should credit Darwin. Or was Darwin himself explicitly drawing on earlier work? If so, we should cite that earlier work. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This second paragraph is terrible. Who added it and why? Though Darwin predicted common descent and evolution implies it, it is not actually a part of the theory necessarily, and the processes involved are quite seperate from it. This article is about the modern synthesis; I think the current wording is poor at best. Titanium Dragon 10:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I edited the second paragraph, and moved it down. Apparently I never really noticed it. It was poorly worded and the last part of it was downright false. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, and the word is usually used to apply to all of those. Titanium Dragon 10:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Common descent may (as JeremyA argues) predate C. Darwin, but it is also an important element of Darwinian theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


Umm... I know this is quite off topic, but I was wondering if any of you could tell me anything about vestigial organs. I know some of them that we as humans contain, but no proof of their function. I have no idea whether I should believe the Creation side of it or the evolutionist side. Your views and maybe some sites would be helpful, thanks. Benjy 05/10/05

Hi, Benjy, thanks for your comment. Wikipedia is really not a place to discuss or debate viewpoints like this, but you may find the Vestigial organ and Creation-evolution controversy articles enlightening. Personally, I am a scientist (in the sense of someone who embraces science as an explanation for how the world works), so naturally I accept the scientific account of the history of this planet, just as I do the mechanics of our solar system or the wavefunction of an electron. However, supernatural phenomena are beyond the scope of science, and there are many people who hold religious historical views which conflict with scientific views. To clarify about vestigial organs: in general, they are organs that in one species are well-developed or useful, but in another, the analogous organ appears to have dgenerated or lost most or all of its functions, perhaps while picking up newer ones. It is not limited to humans; many dolphins and whales (which are mammals) have vestigial hind "leg" bones, which we believe to be remnants from their land mammal ancestors. Those who do not that dolphins evolved from land mammals have alternate explanations, such as that those bones are not related to land mammals' leg bones and that they are intended to serve their current purpose (perhaps anchoring reproductive organs) or that we cannot always comprehend God's plan: just because we cannot find a good use for them doesn't mean they have no use. It is up to you to decide your own beliefs; all we can do here is provide information on both sides. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much...I've really found this discussion space extremely interesting; I didn't realize how many people cared so much for the topic of evolution and creation. Not to mention...everyone seems so intelligent and knows what they are speaking of. Thanks again! Benjy 05/10/05

As an analogous phenomenon, you might want to read about pseudogenes. Graft 21:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved statement for discussion

I moved the following untrue statement here for improvement or rejection if it cannot be improved.

In the west, the United States of America is the only country where creationist ideas are given serious consideration.

It would be nearer true if it were written

In the west, the United States of America is the only country where young earth creationist ideas are given serious consideration.

but I still don't like it. As it was, it ignores the fact that there is a range of creationist thought from young earth to evolutionary creationism. Pollinator 23:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I also don't think it is very specific. "Given serious consideration" by whom? I think what it means is that it is the only country in which there is a recurrent public debate over it. --Fastfission 02:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, by the general populace, maybe, or more accurately, it's treated with some validity by the government and media (which is something of a empirical sidestep for "public mindset"). Either way, it's a very nebulous claim, and though it seems obvious to myself (as an American) that creationism holds a good amount of sway, I'm not sure how to state it in a substantiable manner. siafu 02:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I know of people in Australia snd New Zealand who give serious consideration to Creationism. RossNixon 10:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Suggestions:
  • "The US is the only western country where YEC is a mainstream/common philosophy" or
  • "amongst western countries the issue of creationism is only significant in the US" ?
Joe D (t) 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Aren't what we really getting at is "Only in the U.S. would state and local education authorities contemplate incorporating creationism into science curriculum?" How do we say that? Demi T/C 14:37, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Um. ID is making considerable headway in Turkey, for example. Graft 16:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's first try getting rid of the "only" -- I find it very unlikely that such blanket statements could be completely true unless we constrain it to a very limited and artificial category ("Industrial nations West of the Atlantic Ocean and East of the Pacific Ocean and North of the equator"). If all we are trying to say is, "In the United States, there has been since the 1920s an on-going controversy over whether or not Evolution should be taught in schools at all, or whether it should be taught alongside some form of Creationism," why don't we just say it? We don't have to create some artificial form of exceptionalism; the US is a notable-enough country (at least on an English wiki) for special mention if its experience is significant (and I think it is). --Fastfission 20:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Evolution versus natural selection

I'm graduate trained in biology, and I always have considered the "fact" of evolution distinct from the "theory" of natural selection, which I obviously think does the best job of explaining evolution. I learned this distinction from Stephen Jay Gould.

According to this way of thinking, evolution is that phenomenon of change in the phenotypic characteristics (and, we now know, genotypic characteristics) of species that Darwin originally described from the fossil record.

By contrast, natural selection is a particular, and still evolving body of explanation that biologists and others have developed for explaining that change.

Our understandings of both evolution and natural selection tend to develop in close parallel with one another, almost on a daily basis I'm happy to say, but in my mind they are still distinct.

To understand the point, consider Darwin's (or Gould's) own contributions to thinking about the possibility of "SEXUAL selection" playing a role in evolution, separate and distinct from the role of natural selection. I'm not suggesting that sexual selection is or isn't real; just trying to show how evolution and natural selection are different animals from one another.

I think the distinction would be worth making in this article.

Pspeck 06:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ronald Fisher's 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection starts with the words "Natural Selection is not Evolution". Fisher recognised that people are often confused between the two. The distinction is made in the article, which lists natural selection as a major cause of evolution, amongst others, and at natural selection, though you are free to try to improve the wording.
You should also be aware that sexual selection is a form of natural selection, as is ecological selection, though "natural selection" is often used as a shorthand for ecological selection, sexual selection is no less natural. Dunc|☺ 14:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Darwin certainly did not consider sexual selection a form of natural selectio (he considered them both distinct forms of selection; it was Wallace who insisted that sexual selection was just part of natural selection, which Darwin vehemently objected to), but anyway that's neither here nor there (the "natural" for Darwin meant that "nature" did the selecting, whereas the "sexual" meant that this was just a question of differential birth rates, not death). Darwin considered sexual selection a major mechanism in and of itself, one which explained various things which he didn't think could be explained by natural selection at all (things which would seem non-adaptive in the struggle for existence), but despite his writing a tome on it around twice as long as he did on natural selection, it never really had the same effect on his readers. But anyway, to the point: I think the article makes fairly clear that evolution is the phenomena and natural selection is just one of the proposed mechanisms (albeit the one that is thought to be most dominant/interesting). But if we want to differentiate that a bit more, or state it along Gould's lines of fact/theory (which is somewhat elegant when he says it but is rather philosophically unsound, the idea of untheorized "facts"), that could be done. --Fastfission 18:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead.

I know that this is not related to evolution. But I do think scientists might have valuable opinions. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for this talk page

I have noticed (and I'm sure others will have too) that there is a large amount of discussion on this page related to issues surrounding creationist beliefs. I suggest we create a talk subpage exclusively for debates of this kind. Discussions surrounding these issues can occur there and all other matters can be dealt with on the main talk page. This should help those who wish to advance the article without having to wade through long discussions on creationist matters to do so. But it would allow debate to continue concernings those issues. I suggest we create a subpage talk:Evolution\Creationist related issues and we put a header up saying:

This article is about Evolution not about creationism.
Those wishing to discuss issues concerning the article that 
are related to creationism should use this talk subpage.

Opinions. Perhaps a better name for such a subpage? Barnaby dawson 15:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to throw cold water on the suggestion, because I think it has merit. But I think it may be unlikely to work well in practice. Just as Talk:Creationism is prone to having talk about the article itself spin off into extensive discussion about scientific challenges to creationism, I think this talk page is going to remain a magnet for debate, regardless of the existence of a subpage where that debate would more properly take place. For myself, I think I'd view the isolation of the debate to (only) this talk page, rather than having it spill onto the article page itself, as a relative victory. John Callender 17:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fact Vs Theory

The problem with these terms is that they mean completely different things in general english as opposed to science. When creationists play on this word they seek to confuse the ignorant.

In science, 'Theory' is as good as it gets. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Fact is not a word that exists in the scientific vocabulary. In general english the word 'theory' means, an unsubstantiated claim or, an idea yet to be proven. More closely related to the scientific word 'Hypothesis'.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is as solid as the theory of gravitation and the germ theory of disease. To translate this to general english from science speak it is ok to say 'Evolution by natural selection IS A FACT'.

The scientific word 'Theory' is no different to the general english word 'Fact'.

This is already explained in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well this is a bit different to the usual creationist rants. Anyway,Evolution is a Fact and a Theory as you can read at the talk.origins archive which is one of the external links. Dunc|☺ 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added a small example (which is probably taken from a Stephen J. Gould I read many years ago, "Evolution as fact and theory"), i.e. "apple falls to earth = fact; it does so because the earth warps spacetime = theory". To say they are "reciprocal", while true, is not clear by itself, I don't think. --Fastfission 17:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Slrubenstien - The just-a-theory discussion *used* to be in the article (I'm the one who added it) but someone has since removed by explination. →Raul654 17:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

From "Scientific Theory" section:
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation. Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology, it has completely replaced other explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism.
It's still there, just moved. Graft 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "One of the criticisms levelled against evolution is that it is “only a theory”. This criticism is disingenuous for two reasons. First, the word “theory” has a specific meaning within a scientific context and it means an idea which has enough evidence to support it such that rejection would require not just philosophical arguments but disconfirming evidence. Second, it is a strawman argument. Science is always a work in progress. The fact that the theory of evolution cannot provide absolute answers to all questions about the origins of life does not invalidate the theory any more than the fact that research has not yet uncovered a cure for cancer invalidates medicine or the fact that oil companies drill dry holes invalidates geology. The world-wide scientific community exists just because there are unanswered questions. That is what science is and is for. Science does not have a book which states absolute truths - if it did it would be religion, not science."
    • "All science expects of a theory is that it be testable, falsifiable and corrigible. The theory of evolution is all three. Creationism is none of the three. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for special creation is non-existent."

literal vs. interpretation

I made some changes to one of the paragraphs concerning religion and evolution. First, I got rid of the absurd statement "literal interpretation" (what makes a literal reading literal is that it claims that there is no need for interpretation and no interpretive work being done). In fact, many if not most religions reject literal readings of the Bible. I added something like "Some groups, especially Christian fundamentalists" because it is both more precise and accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it's less accurate. First, there are several varieties of creationists. And second, there are many more involved than Christian fundamentalists. Evangelicals (including many within mainline churches), Pentecostals, and Fundamentalists all tend toward young earth creationism. That said, there are some evangelicals that subscribe to old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism. So why are you so anxious to pigeonhole?
Another thing needed to keep in mind, is that the defintion of Fundamentalist has drifted toward a pejorative meaning (Is that why you want to use the term?)
In discussing Christian fundamentalists, NPOV can only occur when the pejorative overlay is not present. The Associated Press stylebook has a good way of dealing with this (though not all reporters follow it) - that is to only use the term "fundamentalist" with those who call themselves by that term. Pollinator 22:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The passage already specified a "literal reading," and I used the word "fundamentalist" because this is the technical (in the social sciences, comparative religion) definition of a fundamentalist. That is, I was using fundamentalist to label those who read literally, not all creationists. I think I was even clear that others besides fundamentalists are creationists. I don't think fundamentalism is a pejorative -- do fundamentalists really eschew the term? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)