Talk:Evolution/Archive 44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Kitcher

I have no objection to the archiving of the "theory" thread since most of it was not directly about evolution. However, the following material is specifically and explicitly about the theory of evolution. I'd like to know if anyone thinks there is room for this material in this or a linked article:

In his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher addresses the common creationist claim that the theory of evolution is a bad theory because it does not make definite predictions about the results of future observations. He does so by proposing a different account of “theory” than the simple “set of falsifiable statements” definition. I think this is a valuable book not because it is a response to critics of evolution, but because Kitcher is a very well-regarded philosopher of science, and this and other books by him have been very well-reviewed by biologists. Kitcher agrees with Popper that “there is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail” [1]. But he takes into account Hempel and Quine’s critiques of Popper, the point that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists that we view scientific theories as consisting of an “elaborate collection of statements,” some of which are not falsifiable, and others – what he calls “auxiliary hypotheses,” which are.

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features: (1) unity: “A science should be unified …. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems” (1982: 47). (2) Fecundity: “A great scientific theory, like Newton’s, opens up new areas of research. …. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry …. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than i8t can currently answer. But incompleteness is now vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity …. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies” (1982: 47-48). (3) auxiliary hypothesis that are independently testable: “An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save” (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus’s orbit).

Note that Kitcher’s description of scientific theories avoids a reliance on quantification and prediction. Like other definitions of theories, including Popper’s, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) “observational consequences.” But, like the observation of irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, falsification is only one possible consequence of an observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible – and equally important – observational consequence. Kitcher’s account of a good theory of course is based not only on his understanding of how physical sciences work. He is also taking into account the way the life sciences work.

According to Kitcher, this is the essence of the theory:

The main thesis of evolution is that species are not fixed and immutable. One kind of organism can have descendents that belong to a different kind. From one original species, a number of different kinds may be generated. [2].
The major claim of a Darwinian theory of evolution is that the principal factor of change is natural selection: The most important evolutionary changes come about because some allelic pairs are fitter than others, and these obtain greater representation for their constituent alleles in subsequent generations [3].

From Kitcher’s point of view, Darwinian theory is without question an extraordinarily successful theory, and I hope this article can communicate why:

The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative. A Darwinian history is a piece of reasoning of the following general form. The first step consists in a description of an ancestral population of organisms. The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the population through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent. Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of biological questions [4].
The same kind of story can be told again and again to answer all sorts of questions about all sorts of living things. Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions … can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories. Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check [5].
Darwin not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of life. He also gave a structure to our ignorance. After Darwin, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of Darwinian histories. The way in which biology should proceed had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that biologists had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers. [6].

My intention is not to keep an unnecessary tangent going - I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of discussion. I haven't read Abusing Science or Living with Darwin by Kitcher, but I will add them to my reading list. I think Slrubenstein's suggestion of Kitcher's work is a good one from what I've read. The Theory article mentions Kitcher so it is addressed by link. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fundamental Issue Missed - Small Mutations over time.

There is a basic and fundamental concept that is missing regarding evolution which is that evolution is small mutational changes over millions of years. For example, as Evolutionary Giant Gould hypothesizes in The Tallest Tale. Natural History, 105, 18-27, a giraffe's neck grew at a slow rate over many generations so as to allow for similar mutations in the heart to take place, which would allow the blood to get to the brain. This is elementary to evolution and should definitely be mentioned in the first paragraph.

Labaneh (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in the second paragraph of the lead? Tomandlu (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. Looks covered to me already. --Plumbago (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any explanation how evolution creates a guy and a girl from gender-lacking bacteria that reproduce through self-replication? I've been wondering about that...--69.234.198.154 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That hasn't been perfectly explained yet, but the article evolution of sex is your best bet. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Large changes in genes can happen in a single year (see Chromosome abnormalities). Significant changes in genes that allow a deadly virus to infect and kill species that virus never previously infected can occur in a single year (see H5N1 and Global spread of H5N1#Felidae (cats)). WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one way evolution can happen, and we cover that, we also cover such things as hybridisation, which are much more rapid. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article suggestion - RFC

How would people feel about a new article, "Common Misunderstandings about Evolution"? Basically, a place to address all the lies, er, "misunderstandings" put out there by creationists? Tomandlu (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea was discussed (and ultimately decided against) at the top of this talk page. Lowell33 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, apols. BTW rejecting an article because it's a "troll magnet" seems an odd criteria (although I understand the sentiment).Tomandlu (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It is often comical bordering on a droll magnet, but sadly sock puppets, POV pushers, and vandals are a continuous problem despite numerous efforts and strategies. It is just a biology and science article in an encyclopedia (representing the science) and not an insidious plot to corrupt any particular religion or challenge other thoughts. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this over and over on this talk page. We have two articles now that do this, as I noted previously (objections to evolution and list of misconceptions). We had a third article previously that also was on this subject with roughly the same title as you suggest and the community decided to remove it. This article had a section on this subject and the community decided to remove it.--Filll (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these articles are linked from here are they? Perhaps we should add them. Thanks for reminding us of there existence Fill. I think the Objections to evolution article would be a good place for Slrubenstein's suggestion of Kitcher's posits concerning a theory.GetAgrippa (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, many thanks Filll - I didn't know about list of misconceptions, and have now added an entry to this, and intend to add at least one more. As User:GetAgrippa says, a link to these from this article would be a good idea...Tomandlu (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The top of the article (where other links have been provided) would seem the best place, but I've no idea how those links work :( Tomandlu (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate external link

Regarding, http://longlivescience.com, it does not even have any other sites linking into it, which at least for me generally sets off some warning bells, especially when it's claiming to be a great resource for a scientific topic. It's articles do seem to be POV, and none that I've seen really contribute anything to the topic of this article. I don't see any reason to include such an external link. Newtman (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It definitely supports the intelligent design POV strongly, and I see that its Google PageRank is zero, but how can you tell there are no other sites linking into it? That said, I see no reason for having this external link, either. If it's deemed appropriate to include an ID external link, we should at least use a more popular one. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You can see what links to this page here. I know such google searches may be deemed inappropriate by some, but they generally give you a damn good picture of the greater reality. Newtman (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a notable organisation or a good source of information. Doesn't belong in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to add any further links to the external link section in my opinion. The links we have are good ones to legitimate websites. Too many dodgy links and it just turns into a link farm. This article by virtue of its topic will continue to be attacked on a regular basis. The attacks will be quite sophisticated (that one wasn't) at times. It's a good thing so many people have this page on their watch list. Sting_au Talk 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Proposal is to merge content from Mechanisms and processes of evolution now at User:Sushant gupta/Mechanisms and processes of evolution

For those to whom it is not an obvious merge, some discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In principle, an article consisting of a rag-bag of various "mechanisms and processes" seems a bad idea. A better pattern, surely, would be to have each of those processes briefly outlined in the main Evolution article, and then to be the subject of its own more detailed article. This pattern, indeed, largely exists already. I see no reason, in principle, for an article occupying the middle ground, neither an overall explanation of evolution as a whole nor a detailed exposition of any one of the individual concepts. I'd say merge its content partly up to the main article and partly down to each of the subsidiary articles. In saying this I am making no judgement on the quality of the article Mechanisms and processes of evolution. Snalwibma 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly how it should be done. Thank you, Snalwibma, for making such a rational assessment of the situation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

____ i have a perfect solution. why not replace the mechanism section of this very article with a brief section. i mean this way through the article mechanisms and processes of evolution we can give a deeper coverage for processes and mechanisms in a better and independent manner. we can then later on have a set of FA's and GA's and promote evolutionary biology article's for fetaured topic. what do you say. i can re-write the section for this article. it will definitely act very benificial and truely speaking it sounds encyclopedic. thankyou Samsara and Snalwibma, Sushant gupta 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

like we have brief sections for
  • Evolutionary history of life
  • Origin of life
  • Common descent
  • Evolution of life
  • History of evolutionary thought
  • Social and cultural views
  • Applications in technology

we can also have brief sections for outcomes and mechanisms and let the article mechanisms and processes of evolution exist so that the deeper subject matter can be retrieved from their. its a bit bulky to have so much stuff attached to this article and specifically to those 2 sections only. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure, we can merge a few things into this article. For an overall outcome, I prefer Snalwibma's proposal. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
but what i have proposed can also help in improving the coverage of evolutionary biology articles coverage. now lets see how. if we design articles in a hierarchial manner, we can surely promote evolutionary bilogy articles for featured topics. it would be benifical for portal:evolutionary biology. right now it seems that all the details have been attached to this article only and other articles like adaptations are getting rotten. we can go in an order and then finally we can obtain a nice set of articles. we can reduce the content from the mechanisms and outcomes section of this article and fix it with sufficient content like other sections such as evoltuion of life. instead of having such long sections on genitic drift, gene flow and adaptations and many more we can club them in short. we can have mechanisms and processes of evolution as the main article for these sections. before creating the article i thought of this. if i would have been in your place i would have also raised the same issue. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I once again disagree. I think we should jump straight to improving articles such as adaptation, genetic recombination etc. otherwise we'll never get the job done, and we won't be serving our readers. They come here wanting to learn something comprehensive about evolution, adaptation, or recombination. I don't think they come here to learn about "mechanisms and processes of evolution" quite as much. Focus on one specific thing, and try to do that well. Works in life, works in business, works for Wikipedia. I'll make it clear one last time: my offer to nominate mechanisms and processes of evolution for deletion still stands, for the reason that it covers the same material as this article, with considerable amounts being an identical copy. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge it or delete it. No need for two articles covering the same ground. Kaldari 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thats what i am saying. i will go forward to improve those articles also but in a sequential manner. as per me, there is no need for such ample stuff attached to this (evolution) page. we should rather merge the content to mechanisms and processes of evolution and replace it with a briefer section. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sushant, you are not going to make substantial changes to this article that is already a Featured Article. Your article is the one that has to go. Swallow the pill and get on with it, otherwise I'll make sure it happens. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definition of evolution

I don't particularly care for the opening sentence of this article:

"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by using the word "trait", you're focusing on phenotypic change over time, and doesn't this specifically disqualify neutral evolution? (It seems to me that it using the definition given, neutral changes like UUU changing to UUC when both code for phenylalanine wouldn't qualify.) Wouldn't it be better to define evolution as "change in allelic frequency over time"? Bueller 007 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the past, I would have been less anxious to do this, because it might make this article less accessible. However, now that we have the Introduction to evolution article, this might make more sense. Comments?--Filll 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've always learned that evolution was a change in allele frequency. I don't think it's too advanced to just say it.VatoFirme 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to aim for accessibility and keep the current introduction. Tim Vickers 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I too argued "why not just state the definition of a change of gene allele frequencies in a pop. over time", but the majority felt it better for the intro to be simple. Seems we can rehash this forever. I tend to agree with TimVickers, for now, that perhaps other areas are more critical for article development and lets leave this intro. Some of the information in the mechanisms and processes of evolution article would be of use in this article or at least some of the examples. Regards GetAgrippa 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with genetic definitions of evolution is that some momentous evolutionary events are definitely non-genetic (e.g. endosymbiosis). I'm not sure that the term "traits" refers to phenotypic variation alone, but YMMV. It can be replaced with the more neutral "characteristics" if needs be. --Thomas Arelatensis (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of evolution

Firstly, I am a newcomer.

While doing research on DNA I came across quite a lot of scientific criticism that questions evolution or at least key aspects of it. Mutations, mentioned in the second sentence in the main article, seems to have been disproved by the work of Dr Bruce Lipton for example, but there is also a lot more.

I hopped over to Wikipedia to read more, being used to a criticism section in an article. However, evolution's page does not contain such a section and its FAQ erroneously indicates that none of its criticisms have any support in biology. Even while I am no biologist, I can mention and give references to quite a few.

Seeing that this is a protected page and noting the sentiments on the FAQ, let me test the waters first. It seems the page really is not neutral and, given its importance, that a criticism section is long overdue, especially since the most recent and most exciting scientific advancements, certainly to me, has been in exactly these areas where evolution is questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. May I refer you to Objections to evolution, where I think you will find the sort of criticism section that you are looking for? Snalwibma 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we throw in a link to this article somewhere if it's not already there? Sheep81 09:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and look for some references, but I suspect that you are either misinterpreting these advances in biology, or you have been misled. thx1138 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did a little research on this Dr. Bruce Lipton. He's a complete crackpot. He hasn't "disproved" mutations or anything else. thx1138 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that Objections to evolution article is a bit general and vague and objections rather than than criticism, except maybe for the Michael Behe bit in the "Objections to evolution's plausibility" section. It seems to focus on the non-scientific parts of the evolution vs. creation debate which I suppose one should sidestep as far as possible. What I have in mind is a more concise, scientific and specific section to point those who wish to read further in specific directions. These directions being the known and documented holes in the theory. As tentative or indicative examples, but based only on preliminary research thus far, something like "evolution does not explain the sudden explosion of new life" plus a reference and "evolution does not explain leaps in development" plus reference for a second one. Thanks for the feedback on Lipton, although I am sure he'll disagree. Still, I want somebody closer to the topic to actually write the criticism section but for starters am arguing for its inclusion - it would have helped me a lot and seems warranted in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "known and documented holes" come from people with, shall we say, less then reputable backings. Lipton is a quack and far from a quality source. Actually, it would be better if you just go ahead and pitched your idea for this section, and the subsequent slant it will take (pro-id or pro-creationism) so we can go ahead and reject it. Read through the archives before you try to introduce this "idea". Baegis 12:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My original "idea" was to find the frontiers of science and I was hoping to find some pointers in this article, being accustomed to the criticism section that I've seen in many other articles in Wikipedia, one example being Socialism, but there are many others.

Funny, I was hoping to find an example in the Big Bang article but there, too, a criticism section is lacking, so that I settled for Socialism as an example. Anyhow, Simon Singh gives a table of criteria towards the end of his book on the big bang that shows for example that this theory has trouble explaining the formation of galaxies. This of course would be the first entry in the criticism section in the big bang article that I would suggest and I suppose that this is probably where the next few Nobel prices are waiting, either for those who can explain galaxies or develop a new theory to eventually either replace or augment the big bang theory in that it will better cater for the known gaps and holes in it. Singh's whole book is about how the big bang theory was initially obscure but eventually superseded the steady state model.

Anyhow, I am not an expert on the topic but what lies beyond evolution? Reading about recent developments in DNA research I found many comments on the scientific holes or questions posed to evolution and was hoping to find some kind of an enumeration of these in a criticism section in Wikipedia, but found that criticism on evolution is currently frowned upon. The Objections to evolution article that somebody mentioned is closer to the target, but still misses. Quoting from the article, something like 'Evolution has never been observed' basically adds nil to the debate while something more specific like, from one of the DNA articles

DNA acts as a kind of aerial open to the reception of not only the internal influences and changes within the organism but to those outside it as well.

and the conclusion that this may actually lead to a revaluation of evolution is much more scientific and much closer to home.

Now, again, I am not the one to write such a section, though I am willing to try. To some extent I am asking the knowledgeable evolutionists out there to tell us what are currently the known shortcomings of the theory. Where does evolution fail scientifically and why? Again, an example may be that evolution fail to explain the leaps in species development or that DNA reveals we have more in common with dolphins than with land mammals as proposed in Human evolutionary genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.255.185 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can find nothing to support your claim about the human relatedness to dolphins. Could you please provide some cites please? Jefffire 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A number of evolutionary biologist contributed to this article with no mention of any significant criticisms. The outside influence-I guess you mean epigenetic phenomena or are you talking about examples of the environment inducing mutations? The former has a significant literature the latter is less appealing especially with the growing evidence of neutral molecular evolution-not that I am saying there aren't examples in the literature just fewer. Is your concern with the difference of microevolution and macroevolution mechanisms and outcomes? An encyclopedia article should present the majority consensus of information pertaining to the subject as any subject has minority views that in general are also dismissed in the literature by other peers. Seems for NPOV if we presented your papers to a differing view then all the retorts published afterwards should also be addressed-seems a tit for tat going nowhere. Perhaps the Objections to Evolution article is a better place to pursue your comments and address your concerns. Regards GetAgrippa 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
Bruce Lipton? Dolphins? i think its time to stop replying to this section. David D. (Talk) 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What's an evolutionist? I don't think I have ever met one. Oh wait, a scientist! Yes, met a few of those. Evolution does not fail scientifically. There is a healthy debate within the field about certain aspects (mechanisms and such), but you would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist (read: relevant field of study) who would ever say that evolution has failed. How about you just go ahead and write the section you are proposing and then bring it here and it can be studied for inclusion. If this DNA article is from Lipton, as reputable as my dog on this issue, I don't think it will be included. After that, head on over to gravity and see if you can introduce a criticism for that article. Maybe something about how it's magical beings that hide in our feet that tether us to the ground and gravity does not explain how these beings came to be. Should be a good read.
On a separate note, who thinks that this user is a sock of a banned user...maybe it begins with an R. Baegis 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick google on the human/dolphin thing shows http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2708 and http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dna_virus.html to answer the question, but it misses the point.

What I am trying to get is a list from the evolutionary biologists of the pressing questions or holes in their theory that I expected to find in the Criticism section of the main article. I also expected this list to indicate the frontiers of current research on the topic. GetAgrippa hits the nail on its head when mentioning that no significant criticisms are given and that is exactly what I am looking for and maybe, taking a cue from him, the first item on the list should then be that evolution fails to explain environment induced mutations.

I have repeatedly mentioned that I am not the one to make that list and please don't ridicule my examples of what such a list may contain. The issue being the list for now and not its contents. I am not looking for the list of the pro-id or pro-creation guys, but for the list of gaps that the evolutionists themselves are working on at present. If it does not exist then one could probably argue that evolution is dead and not an advancing science, or, alternatively, one just need to wait a couple of years for the next theory to emerge, as improbably as that may seem.

For what it is worth, I am writing a novel in which DNA plays a big part and in my research came across quite a few interesting questions posed by recent DNA research. I was hoping to find the frontiers enumerated on Wikipedia under a section called Criticism and am asking if it is not time to write such a section from the evolutionary perspective. In my specific case, suppose the list started with a point that said that evolution fails to explain why human DNA is much more similar to those of dolphins than those of apes. Then I could write that the mad scientist, after years of working on the topic, managed to solve the puzzle and then to produce clones that could stay under water for 30 minutes and threatened to take over the world. I realise this is a silly example, and maybe GetAgrippa is right again in that the list should be pursued elsewhere, but Objections certainly is not the place.

Funny that you should mention gravity, which I understand science still to be struggling with at present. The world thought Newton solved the puzzle and then Einstein came along. After a couple of years Einstein again was superseded by quantum mechanics. Some believe the final solution will come from M theory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Look over the history of the article and count how many have tried to present an argument for a criticisms section over the last year alone. You will quickly realize the folly is such an endeavor and how quickly different editors respond demonstrating the weaknesses in such posits. In good faith, I tend to think you are not offering criticisms "of" evolution rather controversy and debates within evolution, which there are a number of noted debates and arguments like Mayr and Kimura, Gould and Dawkins, etc. So perhaps you are actually proposing a controversy section rather than criticisms? GetAgrippa 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thomasdid: it appears that you want other authors to invent some "problems" in order to make this article appear "balanced"! There are plenty of unanswered questions within evolution, of the "which critter evolved from which other critter, and when" variety, but none of these is a "problem with evolution" (they do not indicate that evolution itself is likely to be false). Nor does evolution "fail to explain environment-induced mutations" (I note that you have provided no references). But evolution is actually in a better position than gravity, because the mechanisms are better-understood. --Robert Stevens 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Over the last year or so, a few times a subsiduary daughter article addressing current research areas and unanswered questions has been considered. So far, this has not yet been written. Is this what you wanted? Only a few here are qualified to write such an article, and I am not one of them.--Filll 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Big Bang article does have the section you're looking for here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Features.2C_issues_and_problems . It's called "issues and problems" instead of "criticisms". thx1138 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, GetAgrippa, this is the missing link I am looking for. Maybe the section should be called Controversies rather than Criticism as suggested but I've grown accustomed to finding a Criticism section attached to a Wikipedia article and from a consistency point would suggest that the name be that, but this is not critical.

Robert Stevens, I am not asking anybody to invent problems, but merely to share what they know to be the current areas of contention and believe this will make it a much better article. GetAgrippa points to two debates and this to me is a step in the right direction. This is where I expect to find the frontiers to be pushed and the cutting edge research to be done. If nobody knows where those frontiers are or if you are looking for an example of what I hoped to find there then the way in which the environment and DNA interacts, with Dr Lipton's work as a tentative reference, may be a suggestion. It seems you are also adding to the list in that evolution fails to explain adequately which critter evolved from which other critter? Something like this would also indicate an unanswered question and where potentially the next answer will come from.

Filll, that daughter article is exactly what I am looking for and I am also not the one to write it, but thought, given Wikipedia's open and collaborative nature, that maybe I could start by mentioned some of the - uhm - controversies I ran into lately. I admit I did not look at the archives, but the FAQ told me that such a list would amount to saying the earth is flat. I am asking if there really are no scientific issues and, if they do exist, if it is not really time to pin them down. Once that article is written, I'd suggest it be summarised into two or three sentences and that these be mentioned in the main article under a Criticism or Controversies or even a Issues and problems section, with an appropriate link of course.

Thanks thx1138, that issues and problems you mention made me revisit the Big Bang and note it as well. That article also contains a section discussing speculation beyond the current theory, starting like this:

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future.

This is also the kind of thing I was hoping to find in the Criticism section. Where is the theory currently advancing to and why? Presumably to address the issue list the theory will need to be refined on an ongoing basis and I suppose a living science will always have an issue list to work on - gravity being a sterling example of how set notions are bound to change....

Thanks all for contributing, I note that the section grew rapidly and appreciate all who participated. Now we need somebody to write that daughter article and then I suppose we'll discuss how to label or include it. From my side, it does not need to be rocket science, it could even be as simple as a list in the main article enumerating some of the current sticky issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think one of the questions is what are the various mechanisms and how much of a contribution does each one make. I think if you look back in the history you will see others mentioned as this issue has come up again and again. It is pretty technical though and probably quite boring to someone in the public. Not the sort of exciting material you would get from the Discovery Institute (which is all proven to be just nonsense) or from the Institute for Creation Research (which is also just provably BS).--Filll 05:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Lipton's book is not a good source because it is complete nonsense. The environment does interact with DNA, in that cosmic rays can cause mutations, but that's not a point of contention; it's pretty well understood. Disputes about the exact lineage of some species are included in the articles about those species; see California condor#Taxonomy for example. Keep in mind that biological evolution is quite a bit better understood than the Big Bang and expansion of the universe; there aren't a lot of missing holes to fill in, and none of them would qualify as "criticims". One question currently being researched is how big a role horizontal gene transfer played in the early history of life. I think that's already mentioned in the article. thx1138 05:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Filll, I looked at the most recent history - archive 41 - and found the Shortcomings section, as well as the more meaty parts of the Theory? Fact? False? Popular Opinion section to be more or less after the same thing. Again maybe such a section, whatever it is eventually called, with Shortcomings being the latest addition to the potential titles list, is overdue in the main article. As mentioned before, I am not asking for the pro-id or pro-creation lists and want to steer clear of that whole debate as far as possible. I am looking for the scientific questions posed to evolution or yet unanswered based on recent advances or current directions that those advances are pushing us into. HGT certainly makes for interesting reading.

Maybe thx1138 you can mention some references on Lipton in return. I'm sick of hearing how bad he is without any references but also want to dodge this regressing into a Lipton is good or bad debate, so maybe lets just drop Lipton completely and I'll google for his critics myself. I see there is also no Bruce Lipton in Wikipedia for those who wish to pursue it elsewhere.--Thomasdid 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is HGT evidence against evolution? Separa 09:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't. It's an area of ongoing research, and I think there is some dispute as to how much HGT occurred during the early history of life. It was the only example I could think of where there is significant disagreement among biologists about one of the mechanisms of evolution. thx1138 10:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Shortcomings" wouldn't work either. There aren't any significant shortcomings of the ToE, nor any significant criticisms within the field of biology. There are some areas that aren't very well understood, but nothing that indicates a problem with the theory as a whole. thx1138 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Induced mutations do occur in bacteria, yeast, and insects as I recall-hsp60 and hsp90 mediated, but there are other articles more contentious. I would say that epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity are areas not widely accepted with Jablonka, WestEberhand, etc. Really epigenetic phenomena would fall into current research rather than controversy. I note different authors will emphasize evolution acting at the level of the organism, deme, etc. Evodevo is a burgeoning field that hasn't quite found its place yet, and it does have published criticisms as I recall. In any case no evidence against evolution-more defining mechanisms of evolution and exploring possible mechanisms. GetAgrippa 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For an explanation of why Lipton's books shouldn't be cited in this article, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources thx1138 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still reading on the topic, since nobody is willing to write the Controversies page. Anybody here familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0201062739 from Michael Ruse? Then, on a completely different topic - has http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page been hacked? The main page looks very suspicious.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You realise this is a science article? You seem to be interested in political controversies. David D. (Talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, no. That book, from a reputable author - reference duly given - has a title that seems appropriate, albeit a bit old. I have not read that book, but maybe somebody here is familiar with it and could indicate if it is worth pursuing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"Darwinism defended, a guide to the evolution controversies (1982) " you think the book is discussing scientific controversies? From this web site the central theme of the book revolves around two questions. "Was Darwin Wrong? and Are there legitimate doubts about the theory of evolution?" So are there legitimate doubts? David D. (Talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a clue - I am looking for a list of holes, unanswered questions, contentious issues, scientific controversies, known gaps and so on that evolution can not or struggle to explain at present. The book's title looks promising, but it is difficult to get hold of and quite old, so, before I even try, I am asking for those familiar with it to pass judgement on it being applicable or not in this endeavour. If you haven't read it, I presume you too haven't got a clue and then may I ask you politely but firmly to please keep quiet for now.
I read the book some years ago (I used to own it - but someone "borrowed" it without returning it). IIRC, I don't think it will be useful for your purposes. Its author is simply responding to misinterpretations and misunderstandings of Darwinism. That the book is 25 years old is worth noting, as it deals with issues from that time (pre-ID; pre-much of "modern" creationism). If I can make an observation: you appear to be trawling for something (anything?) that can be used to "weaken" the modern synthesis. If such a thing existed, it would be in the current primary literature, so you should look there. But, generally speaking, this does not seem the way to improve an encyclopedia article: it seems more like an attempt to introduce a POV that finds very little (any?) support in the scientific community. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not wanting to disprove evolution, I am doing my best to sidestep the pro-id and pro-creation debates which are next to impossible in this venture, but I am also not buying the idea that evolution is complete and answered all the questions. Funny how evolution is often mentioned to be as sure a thing as gravity, in this section and the article mentioned in the next. I know a tiny, tiny little bit about gravity - still fathoms more than what I know about evolution - but that only serves to increase my scepticism - ahem - scepticism in that there are no unanswered questions within evolution. I have to clarify quickly before you try to hit me on the head again with one of your two hammers, the one it seems being for pro-id and the other for pro-creation....

For gravity, you can construct such a list, even at present, after xxx number of years of research. Without that list, cool things such as the lifter - just use google ok - would probably not exist. That lifter is also pushing the frontiers of science and features in the novel quite a bit btw, and yes, I know Wikipedia is not the one to push those frontiers but is it really unscientific to ask for such a list for evolution? Is it really neutral or scientific to argue that evolution has arrived and that the list should be confined to the peripheral stuff out there.

Before you reach for your hammer, let me - again - hasten to make my endeavour crystal clear. The first step is to argue that evolution probably has some controversies, gaps, holes, unanswered questions or whatever and that it would make sense to include these or some reference to them in the main article - I certainly expected to find them there and when not this whole discussion started. Part of step 1 is to pick an appropriate title - I've settled on Controversies for now based on this discussion thus far.

The next step, I'll label it step 2 for future reference, is to populate that list. I am not asking for a thousand or even ten items and am not doing this to donate glee to those who oppose evolution, but suspect there to be a couple, say 5, such items warranted in such a list at present. I expect these items to feature in the cutting edge research that any living science will attract and also assume that such a list will exist for most every science out there. While one will probably not tire a pro-id or pro-creation scientist with such a question (put that hammer down please) and while I am very guilty of not being neutral in that I am not even inviting those to participate, tempted as I am at this stage, I want to know from the pro-evo, mainstream, majority or whatever label you want to use group of scientific researchers in this field what questions they hope to address with what they are spending their time on at present. Since they are no doubt working on many questions, let me narrow it down to those questions that currently pose a problem to evolution, such as, may I humbly suggest as an example of the format it may take on rather than an actual entry, why are dolphin DNA closer to human DNA when one would expect ape DNA to be closer.

Please put down that hammer, I am trying to dream up a format for that list and trying to provide examples of how things may be articulated on that list. Maybe I should fall back to gobbly-gook to avoid a hit on the head..... The list could look like this. a) Despite years of research, evolution still can not adequately explain abracadabra. b) Scientists don't agree on wooky dooky and some even question if it is possible given mooky chooky. c) Scientists expected to get x but in stead got y and this is currently an active area of research, leading to z. d) While evolution can explain zapcadap, this is not a probable outcome and recent advances led to dapcazap and mapcaplap being questioned. e) Evolution states billybolly but after scientists observed mollytolly the theory needs to be revised and currently it seems to be moving in the wollydolly direction.... There - 5 examples. If those in the know could even just replace the gobbly-gook with real words in one of these items I'd be sooooo grateful..... Feel free to change the constructions as well.

If you need to reach for your textbook to fill it in, then you are probably pinning what I am not looking for. I am not asking for the debates conducted in most isolated laboratories out there. Let me again jump to a simple example. Some would have heard of a theory called Capitalism, but did you know that, whilst a prominent theory, it is criticised that it often lead to a very unequal distribution of wealth. This does not fatally wound capitalism nor does it justify Socialism, but it tells you where government will intervene or where other theories will argue to be better. Both of these have a Criticism section in Wikipedia. I am looking or arguing for a similar section in evolution's main article....... --Thomasdid (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems our posts crossed. I duly followed the link you gave and saw that even Darwin himself had a chapter called Difficulties on Theory in the original work. If you were to write that chapter again today, just from the top of your head, not having to reach into the bottom drawer to come up with peripheral stuff, what would be the five or so biggest difficulties? Thank you. --Thomasdid (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll let the experts try to answer your question. I'm just going to tackle a specific example here: dolphin DNA is not closer to human DNA than ape DNA. I have no idea where you got that notion, but it's false. As far as I know, there are no mysteries in biology of the magnitude of that fictitious example.
Using the examples of Capitalism and Socialism doesn't really work, because those are political systems, not scientific theories. Criticisms of them are based on the subjective values of the people making the criticisms. Scientific criticisms of evolution would have to deal with things evolution cannot explain, or that seem to contradict evolutionary theory. thx1138 (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Continuing to assume good faith... I think the problem is that your five examples would turn into a list of:
  1. things which evolutionary theory has no business trying to explain. Evolutionary theory does not explain the Big Bang. Indeed, and nor does it provide a good analysis of Shakespeare's sonnets.
  2. issues of such minute complexity and arcane obscurity that they have no business in an encyclopedia article on the topic. There is an ongoing debate about the precise mechanism by which alternatively spliced exons are transgenerationally conserved in C. elegans and how this contributes to increased transcriptome and proteome diversity in various eukaryotic lineages.
Snalwibma (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yippee! I just found the shield to all of the beatings I've received. It is in the AGF principle, though the link you gave point to something else. AGF AGF please. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_gravity - it has a section called problems with the theory and under this you find theoretical concerns and disagreement with observation. It states that some questions actually may never be answered. Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation which states that "By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory". Now I am not sure that if I asked a scientist in 1900 to list known controversies in Newton if he would have alluded to this, but this is I suppose a more scientific example of what I am after. Does evolution have such a Mercury at present? Could http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics maybe be a step in the right direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that mistyped link to WP:AGF. I continue to assume it, but I'm sorry, I think it's now time to call your bluff. You are appealing to some sort of principle that an article about X should have a section on "Criticism of X" or "Controversies surrounding X". I fail to see any such absolute principle in Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, and everyone here is telling you (in various ways) that such a section is not required - but nonetheless... OK... Let's have one. Go ahead and write it. Go and do the research and come up with the contents. Time to stop asking others to act as your proxies. Put the effort that you are currently devoting to arguing about the principle into something more practical. Go and look for material to include, and start drafting an addition to the article. Snalwibma (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Phew, you really have got me now. I've tried to conceal this all along, but now that the truth has finally dawned.... Yes! I am accustomed to such a section and it has helped me a lot in the past. Yes, I expected to find one on the main evolution page. Yes, I have been arguing that one be included ever since, at one stage even wanting to write it myself but stopped by the FAQ and thus this discussion. Yes, I've lost waaaaaaay to much sleep asking for one, or rather, explaining what I am asking for. No, I don't know how to write it. If you don't know the answer either, don't get angry with me.
I expected such a list to be common knowledge and that its inclusion would make the main article better. When nobody came up with an answer, I suggested - repeatedly - that such a list would probably be guiding research in the field. I am not asking for anybody to disprove evolution but simply to mention what they know to be the major scientific issues, such as Mercury if this was the gravity page. I don't want anybody to do any additional work to create such a list and wish nobody to waste as much time as I did in pursuing this. I am merely asking those in the field to share what they already know and what are being worked on at present to get in line with theory or the theory in line with reality, maybe in the form of a formal list on the main page?
If such a list really really really does not exist then so be it, but I can not accept this. They say that an engineer believes his model approximates reality, a physicist believes reality approximates his model and a mathematician to have no model of reality. I fall in the latter category, literally and figuratively, but am asking the figurative engineers out there where the scientific mismatches are, supposing these to illuminate to some extent the frontiers of research, which is also what I am after as mentioned before. Are you telling me that you are all a bunch of physicists - figuratively - or that this particular article is the physicists' one? So be it. Then, maybe, where is the engineering page on evolution? Somebody suggested a daughter article. Where is that? Somebody asks where the opposing data is. I am asking the same question? How can evolution evolve if it has already answered all of the questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Darwin's "Difficulties on Theory" were things such as lack of fossil record, particularly intermediates. These types of fossils have been found since his death. So should that still be a controversial point? The modern theory of evolution has moved a long way since Darwin, and even in Darwin day most of the controversey was politicaal. This is an article on science. The political controversy is tackled in depth in other article on wikipedia. A gap in our knowledge does not represent a criticism of the theory. Opposing data on the other hand might lead to a controversy especially if there is a competing model. Where is that data? David D. (Talk) 12:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
People disagreeing with your ideas for the article is not a "beating". thx1138 (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, it can sometimes be hard to find specific info about known issues from Darwin's time. For example, one difficulty for Darwin (iirc the issue was raised by an informed cleric, and darwin accepted it as a legitimate problem), was that at the time, since the behaviour and existence of genes was not understood, darwin couldn't work out how offspring wouldn't be a generalised average of the parents - in other words, how could greater diversity arise from a process that would seem to lead towards uniformity. (mix two or three colours of paint and you may get an interesting new colour, but carry the process any further and you invariably end up with a gray/brown gloop).
It's an important point, since we have darwin's theory being vindicated by a much later discovery. Tomandlu (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am still terribly confused about this. What exactly do you propose for this article? Using circular logic is not really helpful. What is this opposing data you are referring to in your post? And are you referring to problems with evolution as perceived by the public, by those of other viewpoints (ID & Creationism), or within the scientific community? Instead of soapboxing, get to the point. Sorry, I threw AGF out the window on this after the 3rd or 4th editor commented and you kept arguing in circles. And please follow talk page formatting guidelines. This section is now an eyesore. Baegis (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Joining the conversation late, it appears that in asking for "known gaps" in evolutionary theory, Thomas is asking the wrong questions. It comes back, once again, to the whole "evolution as fact and theory" issue. There are many gaps in the fact of evolution - the fossil record will never be complete, molecular phylogenies can never be resolved perfectly. But that isn't a gap in the theory of evolution. Of course, evolutionary theory isn't perfect, but debate isn't so much about "known gaps" as it is about the relative importance of mechanisms. Things like kin selection, group selection, evo-devo and Roughgarden's ideas about sexual selection are areas which have spawned debate and controversy in the last few decades...but they didn't stand outside as "criticisms", they stood inside as part of an ongoing debate. I don't think it's useful to spin them as "criticisms of evolution". Now when you get to areas like evolutionary psychology you find real controversies, but then, you are looking at applications of evolutionary theory. Guettarda (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And you'll find that all the rival hypotheses are consistent with evolution. Hypotheses that contradict it would not be taken seriously, because the operation of natural selection is so well-established. 82.71.48.158 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>This section has devolved into a mess with lots of circular argumentation and a fair amount of whining. There is a huge amount of confusion and misinformation in the discussion above:

  • If the prior discussions on this issue on this page are sought, go back for the last year of posts. You have not found it yet.
  • primate DNA is much closer to human DNA than cetacean DNA, contrary to what was claimed above over and over
  • Several examples of current areas of current research in evolution have been already presented above. However, as I predicted, these examples are not "flashy" and exciting enough for this editor and he does not even recognize that he has already been given the material he was requesting since his level of education and knowledge is so poor in this area.
  • We do not have to answer to his unilateral demands for new articles. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and articles are only available when and if they are available. This is not a fast food restaurant and no one is paying for this information. If someone does not like it, they can go to college, get a bachelor's degree in biology and then go to graduate school and get a phd in biology. Then they can write the article themselves (sorry is that uncivil? Well come on, how much do we have to endure?)
  • There are many many articles about "controversies" with evolution: creation-evolution controversy, evolution as theory and fact, creationism, objections to evolution, flood geology, creation science, level of support for evolution and hundreds of subsiduary daughter articles which are linked to those articles. Feel free to read some of these. But bear in mind, the "objections" or "controversies" raised by Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute etc. are just nonsense. The real areas of current research and real research questions are sufficiently esoteric that even when they have been described to this editor, he is unable to recognize that he has already been given the information he seeks.
  • evolution is far far far better understood and on a firmer foundation than gravity.
  • the Ionocraft has nothing to do with antigravity. Making such claims puts the person in the realm of pseudoscientists and other assorted cranks.--Filll (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about that gravity thing - I'd expect firm foundations to depend on gravity, ergo nothing can have a firmer foundation than gravity. If you can't trust gravity, how can you trust those so-called firm foundations? Anyway, according to XKCD python can overload gravity. This comment has "delete me" written all over it... I'll go home now...Tomandlu (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In defense of my mention of gravity, I meant it as a joke about the magical beings. Considering that school of thought (I have a book coming out...) is as important to the gravity article as interjecting the sort of obviously pro-creataID that the editor in question is advocating. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's time to draw a nice

under this discussion. There - look! Proof that the earth is flat. Snalwibma (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good an EEG recording of a creationist. Well also all of us who responded to this line of questioning too. Back to improving the article. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That line's height provides an excellent measure of the attention span of the typical contributor to this page. GetAgrippa, let me see how strong a shield AGF really is, since you've picked the hammer you're going to use to insult me - and I made the mistake to value your prior contributions to this discussion. This is not just a simple disagreement with ideas for the article, this is getting personal. AGF AGF AGF.

Filll, congratulations, the only thing you got right with unilateral is the spelling. If you feel strongly about that comment, why don't you stop using Wikipedia and write your own encyclopaedia. Also, if this discussion thus far is so littered with the examples you alluded to, then why don't you save us all years of study and format them nicely into a list to consider for inclusion in the main article - not the first time I have suggested this btw.

I am not the one arguing that evolution is at least as solid as gravity, but it actually illustrates my point beautifully. Since gravity is a prerequisite to evolution, I don't think you can really make the claim you are btw. Go read the gravity article, it shows you where the gaps are and even what lies beyond the current theories in that this is where science is expected to find the next answer. Is evolution at least going somewhere or can we stop writing and using new textbooks, since the fact and theory are both complete? See if I ever used the antigravity that you use to make me out for a crank or pseudoscientist. Congrats, too, as you were able to locate it in Wikipedia. But maybe, read a bit more ok. Wikipedia does not even mention - does link to - the asymmetric capacitor or how this makes some to believe that gravity actually is an electrostatic phenomenon. And buy yourself a book on quantum mechanics for Christmas ok.

Guettarda, you seem to be sincere and I do hope you are. Can you help me then to ask the right questions? Even the Introduction to evolution page has a section titled Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution, but not the main one. Again using gravity as an example, that is such a nice page. After reading this you know where observational problems are (quantum level) and where the next theoretical answers are expected to come from (M theory). If you are happy with Newton's approximation, it is given, but if you want to read some more, you are pointed in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Thomasdid - I will repeat what I said above: Go ahead and draft the sort of section you think should be included. Stop badgering others in an attempt to get them to do your work for you. There are many opinions expressed above, and the consensus is certainly that the sort of section you propose will not work. But there is no law against it, and no one is fobidding you from doing it. The best way of persuading people of its value would be be demonstration, rather than by endless discussion of the theory behind your proposal. This encyclopedia is a collaborative venture. Go ahead and collaborate! Snalwibma (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not in this field, and the kind of thing I hope to appear in the main article is the kind of thing that somebody that has some experience should be able to mention from memory. I have drafted plenty of examples of what I think will add value, only to see the content, not the format, to be used against me, despite my directions trying to dodge that. Roughly a third of the comments to this discussion accused my motives and I agree that a lot of the clutter should have been avoided. Then again, I only learned of AGF late in the day.

The amount of links or content given that have tried to convert this into an evo/id/creation debate has also led to clutter and personal attacks. Even you offered hilarity in the display of your superior command of the formatting aspects of Wikipedia. Anyhow, I am working on such a list, but it will take me time. If anybody here is able to help out without pointing in the direction of the evo/id/creation debate.... --Thomasdid (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What are we to think when you bring the dolphins are the most similar to humans on the DNA level? When you quote Lipton as a source? Again, there are no earth breaking criticisms of evolution that I know of, the debates are about the details not the grand scheme. Except for the creationists, which is probably why you have been branded with that brush. I don't think anyone is trying to kill your idea. The truth is that noone knows an example that fits your plan; so th're not so easy to "mention from memory".David D. (Talk) 09:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably have problems in forming stable long term relationships. If somebody makes a mistake, acknowledges that and moves on, even if you don't forgive that person, at least be as polite as ignoring it in subsequent conversations. I've long ago stopped mentioned dolphins and Lipton, even using gobbly-gook to get away from it, but it seems your last name is stuck....--Thomasdid (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose that this entire discussion, which is going nowhere, should be moved to User talk:Thomasdid or some other more appropriate location. Snalwibma (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you've managed to defame my personal page, maybe you can actually contribute and help to move this stuff over there as well. One last question, is there a blog out there somewhere (please not a creation/evolution debate one) where one can ask these kinds of questions and get mature answers? --Thomasdid (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Lighten up Thomasdid! It was a joke pointing to creationist and all of us-not you in particular. Everyone has told you that this is not a forum to answer your questions but a Talk page to improve the article. You are on a quest for info or trolling. Perhaps you should just do your own research for your novel. An article on debates and controversy in evolution has been proposed before but I guess it hasn't reached critical mass or any motivated to write it. I think most editors have been cordial trying to address your concerns. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It is next to impossible not to get sucked into the whole evolution/creation debate. My quest is scientific, and, given that anything that has evolution in the vicinity of controversy immediately brings up thousands of pages that link to that debate, I think the section in the main article should be Criticism and not Controversy as you suggested and I accepted at one stage. Then again, I don't mind hurting your feelings any more... --Thomasdid (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you were offended Thomas. However, when you bring up sort of fringe ideas and references, it is a bit difficult to take your posts seriously. I am not an expert, as I said before, and so I cannot really write this article. I have many other articles which I have a background in, and I am writing those. We contribute when and if we can. As far as I understand, as I said before, the relative contributions of various mechanisms to evolution is not totally understood yet. Someone else mentioned epigenetics. Endosymbiotic theory is another controversial area. I think the Evolution of sex is also somewhat poorly understood still. There are others, but I am not a biologist. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not the religious type, but I am not a biologist either - one of the preciously few things we have in common. If you were in 1900 and either went to a good school or else did some reading or research on your own, you probably would have known about Mercury and the problem it posed to Newton. If somebody nowadays publishes a paper and uses the normal distribution for example, I think he was either lazy or did not understand the question. The world is more complex that whatever theory you use to proxy it and in addressing that complexity you are advancing science. If you need to play within the boundaries, so be it, but you are not going to be the next Novel laureate. On that normal distribution and religious thingys, Einstein is quoted as God does not play dice but even he was wrong when later on the quants discovered that God does indeed play dice - this when they discovered uncertainty at the subatomic level and started to replaced Einstein....

The typical English scientist would have lived and died by Newton - or so I've heard - until Einstein came along. Now even he is fading away. My basic premise is that science really advances when it manages to plug the current holes in the prevalent theory and I also assume that any theory has its own list at any given point in time. My experience is also that this is happening faster and faster for all sciences I am familiar with. The main article comes across as a this is it - the final answer - allelujah affair and thus lacks neutrality as I mentioned before - IMHO.

If you want to understand something, it really helps if you also know where its shortfalls are and I again applaud the gravity article. Anyhow, let me thus more or less conclude that the main article can be improved, IMHO, if it features such a list. Let me not disappoint my public in not providing such a list - for starters, the Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution from the Introduction page as a starting point. --Thomasdid (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas with your interest perhaps you should start a stub on controversies and debates within evolution. I think the article is fairly NPOV per subject and not much different than any encyclopedia I've read. Myself and others are keen on more recent ideas and research, and there was talk of a section or article. Why do you, as a physicist I assume, feel compelled to tell biologist how to write this article-do biologist tell you physicist how to write physics related articles? Not being territorial but it sounds like you are preaching,belittling biologists, and accusing the editors of ignorance or dishonesty. Perhaps I am taking your comments out of context as you did my attempt at humor earlier. Are you proposing we question the phenomena of evolution or the theories, hypotheses, models-science about the phenomena? Further what does this article and the changes you suggest have to do with the novel you stated was your intention. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ota Benga

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

[edit] Dinosaurs and humans

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

Feel free to be WP:BOLD and include the information in the article as you see fit. The beauty of the Wiki. Just remember attribution and WP:RS. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think conveying things well would involve judgment calls that others around here are better equipped to make. I would have trouble, for example, deciding which sorts of dinosaurs to mention, or deciding which time to pinpoint in human evolution. I'm reluctant to ruin what is now a nicely concise overview. Perhaps one of the local experts would humor me by taking a shot at it in this space? Gnixon (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just putting in my opinion, but I don't see what makes dinosaurs and humans so important in an evolution article. They are just a few of many products of evolution. Just my opinion. SkepticBanner (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science community backing evolution

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

Both Science and Nature are dedicated to supporting evolution science. The AAAS has been envolved for several years, and there is a host of articles related to the debate. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I recommend this brochure from the National Academy of Sciences (mentioned in Ciar's link) as a standard resource for this talk page. Gnixon (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] I refuse to edit war but

This change: [1] should be discussed first.--Filll (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You can revert it if you think it is bad. But why do you think it is bad? The reasoning for it is spelled out in the edit summary. Ra2007 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, it probably should. In the end, I think we should really go to just what the source says. Unless someone who wished to edit in the "by scientists" line has the book to confirm that it's there, I think it's safest to leave it out (better to be vague than wrong). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted myself, but would be interested in why uncited vaugeness is preferred over uncited (but likely verifiable) specificity? Ra2007 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the question is, is it verifiable? I have no problems with those words being in there if someone around here has read that source and can attest to it backing up that notion. However, I'm not going to put words into the source's mouth. It could be that the source said it was commonly accepted among everyone - remember that the big problem people had with Darwinian theory was that he applied it to humans as well, and didn't place them aside or put them on the pinnacle of evolution. It's not unreasonable to say that many people of that time accepted that the other species on earth had changed over time. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the "by scientists" version is probably verifiable, and wonder about the version without it. Neither is verified with citation to reliable source, though. Ra2007 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but the original version (sans "by scientists") was presumably put up by someone with the source at hand. That lends a little weight to that version's likelihood of representing the source accurately. Also, dave souza makes a good point that there actually weren't many "scientists" before that time. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bit hard to guess just what Bowler means. Arguably there were no scientists before 1830 or so [date unconfirmed] when William Whewell coined the term. It seems more likely that he's thinking of the general acceptance by then of Georges Cuvier's Catastrophism, which natural philosophers (including most evangelicals) viewed as explaining the known succession of fossils as a series of Creations. Wide acceptance of transmutation / evolution follows on after the 1860s. . .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I must be missing something. The scientific method predates 1830 and there were definitely scientitists, at least in activity maybe not by name. ???? GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The complete sentence is "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted by scientists since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear." Why this is controversial (even if the source does not explicitly say "by scientists" it is obviously implicit. Besides, I'd like to check, but the whole book is cited without reference to a specific page or chapter. Maybe the whole sentence should go? Ra2007 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing. It's not obviously implicit to me. I know that many non-scientists (or non-scholars, should I say?) accepted this back then. It seems reasonable to me that the source might have implied that this was widely accepted. Perhaps we should use a different term, such as "scholars" or "academics," though. Or maybe we could change it another way, such as "...has been generally accepted since..."? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To agree with somebody else, we should get the source, summarize it (and also reference the page number). Ra2007 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason the sentence might be inaccurate is because many (probably most) people in the early 1800s did not accept that species changed over time. I'd wager most people didn't even know it was a possibility. The acceptance was rather among the scientific community. This is an article about a scientific topic, and the sentence is in a subheading relating purely to science, not to cultural beliefs at all, so I don't know that the distinction needs to be made. We don't preface every other sentence in this or other scientific articles with "scientists think" or something like that... it's implied. But if we do make the addition, "scientists" is clearly preferable, because "scholars" or "academics" could also include religious scholars or academics, for example, which would not have necessarily accepted the idea. Sheep81 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made the original insertion of "by scientists," so perhaps I should comment. The word "accepted" to me seems to allude to a debate, in which context it's appropriate and necessary to qualify with "by scientists" or "by scientists and most everyone who learned about it except some who found it conflicted with their religious beliefs." I hoped "by scientists" would be a simple, acceptable fix. I'm sorry I was wrong. Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a much better fix, which I missed the first time around: swap "known" for "accepted," as in "The fact that species change over time has been known since XXXX." Presumably this was the originally intended meaning. I'd go ahead with the change, but, well, you know.... Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, "Scientists theorize that" in the first paragraph seems similarly problematic in that it can be misread to suggest a lack of certainty. Better to just cut that phrase. If for some reason it's important to link to "theory", there are better ways to do it. Gnixon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for a couple of catty comments above. I'm going to BB and make the changes I suggested after reading this discussion. Cheers, Gnixon (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, isn't the intro getting a little wordy? I think I remember a much cleaner version from a few months ago. Anybody want to try taking a hedge trimmer to it? Gnixon (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I added the "Scientists theorize that..." bit to keep people from adding "theory" to the first sentence over and over. My point was that evolution itself isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon that scientists have observed... the theory in question is that evolution occurs by natural and sexual selection, genetic drift, random chance, etc. I think a link to Theory#Science in the first paragraph is important so that the uninformed can find out what a theory actually is if they come to visit this article, since that seems to be a major misunderstanding among the general public. Thanks for switching that word in the other sentence too, I think that ought to resolve the problem. Sheep81 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your reasoning, but I think the comment at the top that links to Evolution as theory and fact is enough. Of course, it's not wrong to use the word "theory" in the lead, but I think it causes more problems than it solves. We're justified in just removing it whenever it crops up (with friendly explanation, of course!). Gnixon (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, now I see that "theory" crops up naturally in the last paragraph. I linked to Theory#Science the first time it was used. Is that okay? Gnixon (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it was linked there before, I just moved it up to make it more obvious. It's really not a big deal to me. By the way, I agree the lead is a bit wordy now. Sheep81 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "By scientists"

Regarding "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been accepted (by scientists) since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear.", the fact that there had been changes was accepted by the majority of educated people, including clergymen – science was not a profession until the 1850s, and professors of science subjects would commonly also teach theology, as did those who Darwin learnt from at Cambridge. The establishment also held firmly to the idea that species were fixed and immutable, and rejected "evolution" which had a slightly different meaning at that time. They therefore interpreted the changes as a series of creations and extinctions. Darwin's impact from 1860 onwards was in making the idea of transmutation of species, later called evolution, respectable, so that it became the scientific consensus in the late 19th century. However, evolution had long been popular with many in the lower classes, and following the publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 it gained wide public support, even though it was rejected by the scientific establishment until the 1860s.[2] So, the "by scientists" is unnecessary and misleading. .. dave souza, talk 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Obviously "by scientists" was a mistake. Mea culpa. Do you think the current sentence/paragraph conveys things correctly? To me, it reads like we're saying educated folks agreed species evolved, but didn't know why. That reading is obviously contrary to your reference. I suppose the current sentence isn't technically wrong, but it seems misleading to me. Gnixon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, "While the fact that the species on Earth have changed over time has been known since the early 19th century" is, as you say, technically correct, but perhaps we can find a concise way of being more explicit. Nothing springs to mind right now, but suggestions welcome. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Is there a reason "on Earth" is necessary? How about "While the fact that species change over time..."? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point, we still know nothing of life elsewhere. Currently trying out "While the fact that there had been a series of changes of species over time has been known since the early 19th century, how this happened was initially unclear." Still doesn't seem satisfactory. .. dave souza, talk 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this sentence referring to faunal turnover or changes within species? You could say something like "Changes within/between species have been recognized since the early 19th century..." Sheep81 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
From the late 18th century there was recognition that different eras had different organisms, thus the Silurian, Cambrian (both named after ancient British tribes) Devonian etc had distinctive fossils. A minority explained this as transmutation of one species into another, Lamarck being a leading exponent of this idea, but the majority opinion was that each era represented a separate Creation. A variant of Lamarck's ideas was popularised in 1844 by Vestiges, and Herbert Spencer published ideas of evolution, both in nature and in human society, from 1857, but it was The Origin of 1859 that introduced Darwin's idea. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] I've been invited to suggest this

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

Violate WP:POINT much?--Filll (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An admin suggested that this question needs to be asked on the appropriate page. Ra2007 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Which question? Which admin? Which page? When? Why? --Filll (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have no opinion that you can express, I'd rather not let you derail the section. Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I guess you are trying to be obtuse. I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A bit more detail would probably help. What's the question? Is Ann Coulter a RS on evolution? Certainly not. Is she a RS on what evolutionary scientists think? I would say not. Is she a RS on what creationists think? No idea. Is she a RS on what Ann Coulter thinks? Probably. So, what's the context? bikeable (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Ra2007 was just repeating what the admin said, and it sounds like just the advice that any admin would give Ra. I strongly suggest that Ra takes that advice. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, she discloses extensive footnotes and is reliable. She should be as good of a source on what evoutionists think as a Rolling Stone Columnist is on D. James Kennedy, for example. 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra2007 (talk • contribs)
Ah, the mythical "evolutionists". Now I see where you're coming from. Why don't you go back to religion and leave the science alone? .. dave souza, talk 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I would love too, but it appears that on Wikipedia, Rolling Stone (magazine) is a RS on evangelists, and so I thought a political pundit would be a reliable source here on a scientific article (especially since she has sooo many footnotes, just like TalkOrigins.) And the NCSE has been deemed a reliable source on D. James Kennedy too. Strange, I know, but true. Ra2007 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Now Filll, I think Ra2007 is making a WP:POINT. Which looks very much like disruptive editing to me. Perhaps Ra2007 should take some time off to study Wikipedia policies? ... dave souza, talk 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, while it may appear that way to you Dave, the Coulter book is really quite good, and deserves to be used as a source on this article and on the article Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, and other articles. Ra2007 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's how is appears to the rest of the community that makes the difference in the end. Being so, I encourage you to carry on so we can get this over with. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What is your problem with rolling stone, don't they have real journalists? Coulter is all about propaganda. And if what you're doing here is not WP:POINT, then nothing is. David D. (Talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You've been getting bad advice. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Footnotes, eh? See Richard Feynmann's classic essay on "cargo cult science." Coulter can have all the footnotes and references she wants, but the planes ain't gonna land. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, you should sit down and read through these "footnotes" that Coulter claims to use. I've seen more honesty at a 3 card monte game. At midnight. In a rough spot in NYC. Baegis (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, be fair, didn't Dembski (The Great Newt of the Infromashun Age) write it for her? . . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

It's reprinted in various places on the web, but linking to copyvios is naughty. Googling "feynmann cargo cult science" will get you there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I will tell you when Coulter can be a good reference for this article. People like Ra2007 want everything to be fair and equal, including forcing those who are not of his faith to pay to force public school teachers to proselytize children from families who are not of his faith to subscribe to the discredited beliefs of his faith in publicly funded secular science classes, or else be fired or jailed. So everything can be fair and equal when I can force all the religious leaders to regularly stand in front of their congregants and tell them that all the tenants of their faith are horse manure and lies, and force their congregants to hear that message and to pay for it. At that point, things will be getting closer to fair, and I will argue that Coulter might be a suitable reference for this article. Until the time that I can ensure that all religious beliefs are discredited as ridiculous nonsense meant to fleece teh gullible regularly in the churches, mosques, temples and synagogues, it is really not something I can support. Thanks...--Filll (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This article does not discuss godless liberalism, so I am at a loss as to what the POINT might be. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the book did have a chapter (or two, haven't read it) "on" "evolution." But the reason this is POINTy is that Ra2007 disagreed with the use of Rolling Stone as a source for some claim in the D. James Kennedy article. He tried to use this case as a metaphor on that talk page, but people weren't seeing/didn't agree with the parallel. So then he comes here asking if his metaphorical comparison (which his own logic leads him to believe isn't valid) should be enacted here. His goal is to make a point here that Ann Coulter isn't a good source on evolution then use that to argue his other case (or possibly he's trying to use the other case to push in her as a source here in a riposte). It won't work in any case, as people over there didn't agree that a parallel existed at all, so the outcome here is irrelevant. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed extensively over at the Kennedy article. Rolling Stone is a major magazine with a history of investigative journalism and editorial oversight and fact checking. This is in contrast to a book written by a pundit talking about a topic the pundit has no training, degrees or education in. Enough POINT. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's face it: this article will never be fair and and balanced until it includes an account of how Tzacol, the Builder and his consort Bitol the former; Gucumatz the feathered serpent and his consort Tepeu the conqueror; Xpiyacoc and his consort Xmucané (these last two are the grandparents of Hunajpu and Ishbalankej, the hero twins of the Popul Vuh story); Alom the father god and his consort, Qaholom, the mother; u Qux cho, the spirit of the lake., created the first human beings. You secularist evolutionists always want to keep religion out of things but the thunder gods will drink your blood and you will be sorry unless you acknowledge them! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a few quotes from Ann Coulter here. I think they give enough reason never to consider her as a reliable source for any information other than a topic on modern neo-nazis. "God says, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors!" on the terrorist attackers of 9-11 - "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity!"

I could personally give you a load of crap footnotes myself from totally unreliable sources, here are some things that by RA2007's logic, should be on wikipedia.

"Wal-Mart represents all that is evil and wrong in the in the world" Me, PHD Dennis C., Casey H.

"Magic is real" That four year old on my corner, Harry Potter, The Mists of Avilon"

"God shall smite all that do not follow him" Thousands of religious people world wide.

Because there are people who have said this before, does not mean that they are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Next generation

The next sentence in the paragraph is "This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits reproduce more successfully, passing on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation." The "passing on more copies of heritable traits" seems a bit confusing to me, would it be clearer to say ".. reproduce more successfully, so that more in the next generation have these heritable traits." or alternatively ".. reproduce more successfully, so that more in the next generation inherit these traits." ........ dave souza, talk 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Either one is fine with me. Sheep81 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Or "...so that these heritable traits are more common in the next generation." Sheep81 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "inherit these traits" as it's simple and explicit. Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Changed. Sheep81 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

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

I'd appreciate it if some other editors would look in the article history and see if they agree with Orangemarlin's repeated reversions of my edits. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Rfc? Also, quote redacted seems to me to be mean spirited and goes against the spirit of consensus-building. TableMannersC·U·T 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think an RFC on the article is needed here. Gnixon (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Two-Creationist consensus doesn't count for much. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that two creationists (or two anything) do not a consensus make. Also agree that OM could be less colourful in his language, yet his overall point is accurate. How about everyone try to work out a solution rather than screaming "unfair" and "RfC"? •Jim62sch• 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Typical behavior of Gnixon, which always gets him into hot-water, is that instead of working out a consensus, he literally complains 24 nanoseconds after someone stands up to him. He doesn't play nice. And TableManners thinks an RfC is going anywhere on a content dispute? I love colorful language.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a long discussion in the topic immediately above this one involving at least three editors. Shortly before that discussion, I made a suggestion on this page and was encouraged to WP:BB and go ahead with the changes. Gnixon (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure what was controversial about those edits, or how they could be perceived to be biased toward creationism. Sorry if this fans the flames. Gnixon (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets all stay calm. I think some of those edits were fine, although I did not review all of them. Although the colorful language is comical, it might cause more trouble than we need. On the other hand, I am not wild about creating a creationist leaning, if that is what happened here.--Filll (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK with the present language (id est, the edit restored by Slrubenstein), although I'm not clear why Wallace was removed. Darwin was not the first to posit an evolutionary theory, although he was the first to evoke natural selection as a mechanism. An answer to this query re Wallace would be appreciated. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Re Wallace, just trying to trim down the paragraph. For obvious reasons, it's awkward to properly attribute publication of the theory. In the original version, Wallace and Darwin were mentioned, then Darwin's Origins was separately mentioned, which was in my opinion a bit wordy. Others could of course reasonably disagree, and I'm not strongly attached to the exact form of my edit. Gnixon (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn'tmean to dis Wallace - in restoring the earlier edit, I first went over it and asked myself, (1) what is the minimum that needs to be in theintro and (2) what can we deal with in greater detail in the body? I think explaining Wallace can be well-handled in the body. That said, i have no principled objection to mentioning him the intro. Just want to save sapace. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, although it is too minor to include in this article, Darwin and Wallace were not the first to propose natural selection as the mechanism in evolution, but Patrick Matthew.--Filll (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, quite explicitly, too: "As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence . . ." Gnixon (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wells even earlier – see History of evolutionary thought#Anticipations of natural selection and the Historical Sketch Darwin added into On the Origin of Species from 1861 onwards. .. dave souza, talk 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to jump the gun, but if this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I'd like to return to the (topic above) discussion of what pre-Darwinian ideas deserve mention in the lead. I'd also like more input on how we could trim the lead to be more concise (and whether we should do so). Gnixon (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I have argued about the LEAD for over a year, and created in the past a couple of sandbox proposals etc. And finally it became so contentious that I gave up and created Introduction to evolution instead. Whatever you do, I would not have high hopes that it would have much of a chance of staying; sorry, but I have watched this for over a year and I think it is naive to believe you can really do much about the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

L'optisme, l'optisme, toujours, l'optisme. I think we've improved the lead today, at least on the front of conciseness, and provided that these changes will win the blessing of our fair goddess Consensus. Gnixon (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I still feel like the last paragraph of the lead is a little misleading about the history. It draws a distinction between knowledge that evolution happened and knowledge of its mechanism, attributing natural selection to Darwin and pinpointing that as his essential contribution. That doesn't seem to square with History of evolutionary thought or T._H._Huxley#Darwin.27s_bulldog (both very well-written articles). Those articles make it clear that there was much debate throughout the 19th century over whether and how species evolved. They also make it seem like Darwin's essential contribution was to amass evidence of evolution alongside a consistent theory---the detailed presentation of a consistent whole (along with Huxley's bulldogging) was what gave Origins such a powerful impact. Given the history's complexity, maybe it would be wise to drop any attempt to address priority in the lead, and instead simply start that paragraph with The theory of evolution by natural selection was (first !!!) detailed by Charles Darwin in .... "Origin" .... That would seem to solve a number of problems. I'm not attached to the particular wording. Gnixon (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between process and mechanism is highlighted in history to help people grasp the difference between evolutionary outcomes and processes, something we always have problems with ("just a theory"). This text therefore serves two purposes. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, it seems to contradict the facts if we say everyone before Darwin knew evolution existed, but nobody knew how it happened (see, e.g., the Huxley debates on the first point and Matthew on the second). I'm wondering if some mention of paleontology would solve the problem (i.e., rise of paleontology at turn of 19th century was amassing lots of evidence for the process) without forcing the language to carry all the nuances. Gnixon (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There were lots of ideas on how it might happen, but until Darwin, the real reason was not widely known. I'm not particularly wedded to the current language, but this point was what I was trying to convey. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we really need to go into too much detail in the lead. How about something like "Since the early nineteenth century, scientists had recognized the extinction of species and appearance of new ones in the fossil record, but the mechanism for these changes remained unclear. Charles Darwin's 1859 book, The Origin of Species detailed his theory of evolution by natural selection. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with..." Sheep81 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds better to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. Now this is consensus. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have any problem with putting that in the article then? Sheep81 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, too. Minor reservation: does it flow correctly from the previous paragraph? Another option would be something like "Scientists began to recognize ... (prob ref late 1700s)", but that seems harder to get right. I'm for putting in the Sheep's version. Gnixon (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it.--Filll (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn I just noticed that "Since the early 19th century" is in the present tense and "had recognised" is past tense. Modified it a bit to fix that and to connect the sentence with the following one on Darwin. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it works and I also note that the lead seems a lot better now after a little pruning. It is consise but also complete, and seems like it could stand alone as a short introduction to evolution. Sheep81 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted "first", as fossil extinctions etc. were recognized (or recognised) earlier, and as History of evolutionary thought#Paleontology and geology notes, "In 1796, Georges Cuvier published his findings on the differences between living elephants and those found in the fossil record... effectively ending a long-running debate over the possibility of the extinction of a species." To give accessible info on this I've linked Johnston's page on early history of geology – his next page on The Origins of Evolutionary Theory has info about the relevance to evolution, but the geology article says more about the fossil record. Young's History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth is also very informative. .. dave souza, talk 10:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Dave Souza always seems to find great sources. I wonder if we need to do "scientists"->"naturalists". Gnixon (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to introduce another technical term when the simpler word is accurate. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I probably concur with keeping "scientists," but I was thinking along the lines of Dave's comment that scientists arguably didn't exist before the mid-19th century. Reading that Young reference, I'm struck by how young geology and paleontology were in the early 19th century, with leading geologists leaning on Noahic flood theories at least into the 20's, and discovery of vertebrate fossils only starting around the turn of the century. It just furrows the brow a bit. Gnixon (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit silly to claim that scientists did not exist because the name "scientist" did not exist. Come on, you expect us to buy that? Also, Noah's flood has been roundly dismissed by legions of writers, including religious writers like Saint Augustine in the 4th century. Denis Diderot in the 1700s was dismissive of Noah's flood. Few who were serious and educated took Noah's flood as literally true, and this was for many centuries before Darwin.--Filll (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong about the history. The Young reference (conveniently available online, see Dave's link) makes it quite clear that nascent geology was driven by diluvialism through much of the 18th century, and that one of the most prominent geologists of the early 19th century (can't recall name, discussed at length in reference) was quite seriously presenting evidence of a global flood until c. 1830. As always, it took "serious and educated" people outside of geology even longer to let go of such ideas. Please check the reference. Gnixon (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As for "scientists," I would certainly have called Newton a scientist well before the term was invented, but I'm a little uncomfortable applying it to guys who explained rocks or fossils by a great flood. Gnixon (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, here is a an excerpt from Young that should set the record straight on early 19th century geology:

Summary of Early Nineteenth-Century on the Flood

Naturalists of the early nineteenth century accumulated a great deal of information that led to changes in their view of earth's history and the role of the Noachic deluge in it. They all paid scrupulous attention to the full spectrum of available geological information and adjusted their ideas in response to that information. Many of them were orthodox Christians, and yet they felt no need to distort the evidence they encountered in order to sustain their belief in the biblical deluge. One finds no appeal to miracle on the part of even the most ardent advocate of the deluge, William Buckland. The premier geologists were persuaded that existing geological evidence supported the notion of a global or at least continental deluge. Every one of them rejected the old diluvialism which attributed the deposition of fossiliferous secondary and tertiary strata to the flood, however. They identified only surface deposits as the effects of the deluge.

Even that view collapsed, however, because of the importance that these men placed on extrabiblical evidence. Buckland, Sedgwick, and others ultimately abandoned nineteenth-century diluvialism when it became clear that gravels, valleys, polished rocks, cave deposits, and the like could no longer be satisfactorily understood as the result of a giant deluge. Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation. Biblical expositors of the period were more reluctant to grapple with extrabiblical data in so forthright a manner, as we will see.

Elsewhere in the article it shows that diluvial theories fell away during the 1820s due largely to the challenges of John Fleming. Gnixon (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A different point: "Darwin's theory that evolution occurred by natural selection" seems to read with the non-scientific meaning of "theory". "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection" (or similar) seems better. I guess I mean that "evolution occurred by natural selection" is an assertion (or a conjecture), which is something less than the detailed theory we refer to as "evolution by natural selection." Can some grammarian explain what I'm trying to say? I understand the motivation to separate process and mechanism, but I don't think it can be broken so cleanly here. Gnixon (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To say it another way, if we wrote "Darwin's theory was that evolution occurred by natural selection," wouldn't we be giving him too little credit? Gnixon (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, is there?--Filll (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand how you could think it's nitpicking, but I think there's a difference. I never hear people talk about "Newton's theory that gravity was a force that acted at a distance" or "Einstein's theory that gravity is a warping of spacetime". Rather people say "theory of gravity" for the reasons I explained above. I think we're bending the language too much. Anyway, can I presume it doesn't make a difference to you if I change it? Gnixon (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More History

The Johnston ref from Dave indicates that debate among biologists over the immutability of species continued well into the 19th century (see Cuvier). I'm worried more and more that the history is still being skewed by our attempt to distinguish process and mechanism in the last paragraph of the intro. Must run; will try to give details/refs later. Gnixon (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In order for there to have been a debate, there must have been scientists that recognized changes in species over time, right? The sentence doesn't say "all scientists", just "scientists". It's perfectly accurate as-is. Sheep81 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfectly? By that logic, one could say "physicists (currently) recognize string theory as the correct description of fundamental particle interactions." But nobody would say that, because the jury's still out. The sentence in the article implicitly refers to scientists in general, not to one side of a debated issue. Gnixon (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding something, Gnixon. From Cuvier on, all "scientists recognized the extinction of species and the appearance of new ones in the fossil record, but the mechanism for these changes was unclear." as the article currently states. Many scientists held that species were immutable, so for each appearance of a new species they posited a divine intervention – catastrophism held that a whole batch appeared at the start of each "age", the uniformitarianism of Lyell had the idea of "centres of creation". As the article you link to states, "The fierce arguments over the appropriate model for biological science quieted down considerably, however, in the late 1830's and 1840's, with something of a compromise. By this time the evidence for some type of evolution or progression (from fossils, embryos, homologies, and rudimentary organs) was becoming almost impossible to deny" and this was followed by Owen's contrived synthesis with abrupt changes expressing God's will. "by 1859 the concept of evolution had been in the air for fifty years and had been hotly debated for over thirty years (at least). In principle, the concept had been largely accepted in the scientific establishment. At issue still were the mechanism by which it operated, the extent to which the Divine Will controlled the process, the basic shape of the lines of descent, and (most contentious of all) the status of human beings in the scheme." .. . . dave souza, talk 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't made myself clear--apologies. Of course I don't dispute your quotes, and thanks for taking the time to dig them up. The key issue is that there wasn't agreement on "some type of evolution or progression" until c. 1840. Two points:
  1. for our purposes, 1840 isn't well-described by "the early 19th century"
  2. "extinction of species and the appearance of new ones" is not evolution.
Better description: "By the mid-19th century, the diversity of extant organisms plus the fossil record had convinced scientists that species changed over time; however, the details by which these changes occurred remained unclear." (Imperfect sentence, but accurately conveys the relevant history.) Do you see what I'm trying to get at? I appreciate your patience within this imperfect form of communication. Gnixon (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That works, I think the major part before the semicolon that we need to figure out is how to write and what to include in the "diversity of extant organisms plus the fossil record" part. Maybe just "studies of extant organisms and the fossil record" even. After the semicolon (if the semicolon is even necessary), I still like "but the mechanism for these changes remained unclear" as currently written. The word "mechanism" is quite frequently used in basic biology textbooks and the literature (see the article cited for example) and I've often heard it used in lectures as well... I don't think people will have a hard time understanding it. Sheep81 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me be clear that I'm sure we can write a better sentence than what I gave---just trying to make a point. I'm not yet clear enough on the situation at Darwin's time for me to get that sentence right---still picking through the really good refs from Dave. I might be cool with "mechanism," but for me it depends on whether Darwin's contribution was strictly limited to explaining the mechanism. Was it really settled before Darwin that things evolved? If so, why wasn't everyone in biology hunting for an explanation? Why hadn't anyone rediscovered Mathews (?) and that other guy who had the right answer? Gnixon (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To sum up my arguments above, I propose we follow the lead of Johnston in describing the context of Origins:

For any proper understanding of the context of Darwin's great book, it is important to remember that by 1859 the concept of evolution had been in the air for fifty years and had been hotly debated for over thirty years (at least). In principle, the concept had been largely accepted in the scientific establishment. At issue still were the mechanism by which it operated, the extent to which the Divine Will controlled the process, the basic shape of the lines of descent, and (most contentious of all) the status of human beings in the scheme. However, the radical political implications of evolutionary change had to a large extent diminished, and the establishment had for the most part reconciled itself to the idea, especially in scientific circles (27).

That is, we should say that by c. 1860, the idea of evolution was backed by a pretty strong case, although the mechanism was unclear. However, it would be wrong to say that things were settled since the early 19th century. It's important to note that lots of conservative biologists, let alone educated folk outside science, were arguing against evolution. (It was "hotly debated" since 1830). Gnixon (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So changing it to "mid-19th" would be okay or was there something else you're trying to get across that I'm missing? Sheep81 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, a little more, as per my last post that you responded to. By focusing on mid-19th, it becomes fair to say that scientists were starting to agree that there had been some sort of evolution. From what I've read about the reception of Origins, it seems like Darwin's contribution went beyond just providing the mechanism for what everyone knew was happening. I thought his work gave everyone a much more complete understanding of the process as well as the mechanism. How could you understand the former w/o the latter? It seems logical that his work would have gone a long way towards closing off the "hot" debate that started in the 30s. But I need to read more .... Gnixon (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I also really like the idea of getting in something about the diversity of life and the fossil record, since those seem to be the evidence (especially the former) that led scientists to recognize evolution. The interplay with geology and the collapse of diluvialism is also quite interesting, as is the fact that human evolution remained a sticking point very late in the game. There's a fascinating story here about scientists slowly and reluctantly distancing themselves from religious interpretations as their fields matured. We don't have to get into all those things in the lead, but we should be aware of the context they provide. Specifically, we shouldn't be afraid to admit that Darwin's theory dropped a lot of jaws. Gnixon (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another important quote from Johnston:

...in the years following the publication of Origin of Species, while the general doctrine of evolution in some form or another grew to general acceptance, Darwin's particular version of it did not win over the entire scientific community.

Thus the immediate impact of Origin was to convince scientists that the process happened (it wasn't settled before he came along). In the long term, of course, his mechanism came to be accepted, but that had to wait for the modern synthesis. This aspect of the history is misrepresented in the lead. Gnixon (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

All potentially interesting, and all not relevant for this article, particularly the LEAD. Like always, everyone wants to shove assorted junk and trash in the LEADs and turn them into dungpiles.---Filll (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not very nice. How can it be irrelevant that the lead misrepresents the history? I'm trying to give the context that would guide us in concisely representing the history. I'm also trying to clear up gross misunderstandings like "Few who were serious and educated took Noah's flood as literally true, and this was for many centuries before Darwin," among the authors of this page. This is all quite relevant to writing a good lead. Gnixon (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In defense of my previous statement, anyone who does a little research will quickly realize that biblical literalism was viewed as silly for a good 1500 years before Darwin.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's accurate, either, but no need to get into it here. (Happy to discuss on talk if interested.) Gnixon (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, everything cannot be first.--Filll (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem starting the paragraph with "The theory of evolution by natural selection was detailed by Charles Darwin in ...." But people here seem to want some historical context. Now what's more important, that discoveries of extinct organisms occurred around the turn of the century, or that the community was debating whether evolution happened since c. 1830? Gnixon (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead History Proposals

How about

"While studies of the fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms had convinced some earlier scientists that species changed over time, the mechanism for these changes remained unclear until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Darwin's work, which detailed the theory of evolution by natural selection, soon led to universal acceptance of evolution by the scientific community. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth."

It's really only a few words longer and I think perhaps more accurate. Sheep81 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it very much---well put! Recommend "soon led to the acceptance of evolution within the scientific community" to avoid an anthropomorphism of the community. Also probably wikilink "extant," which will be pretty technical for some readers. Should reference Johnston where appropriate. Would be nice to wikilink to something about diversity of life, preferably something that includes some history. Gnixon (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'd also propose "Studies of the ... had convinced most scientists of the mid-19th century that ... (full stop). However, the mechanism...." Gnixon (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There's also a slight problem with crediting Wallace which I was trying to bypass with something like "detailed by." Gnixon (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"many earlier scientists" would be better, considering how popular the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters was in the early 19th century. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but it becomes vague what period we're "earlier" than. How about the construction below? Gnixon (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another try:

"Studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists by the mid-nineteenth century that species changed over time. However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, describing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's work led to rapid acceptance of evolution by the scientific community, but the mechanism of natural selection remained under debate. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, connecting the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory is the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Not perfect. This glosses over the fact that natural selection remained controversial until the modern synthesis, but I was trying to keep it concise. Maybe there's a good way to get it in. Gnixon (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I like "universal," but can we indicate how long it took? "Soon led" or "by the end of the 19th century" or "over the next few years"? I'm not sure what's most accurate. Gnixon (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The above seems to me to be skipping the early 19th century stage of acceptance that there had been changes, and collapsing the time frame. Here's my suggestion:

"Studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists by the early nineteenth century that species had gone extinct and new species had appeared. There was considerable debate about the process, until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species presented a mass of evidence that evolution occurred and described his theory of natural selection. Darwin's work led to rapid acceptance of evolution by the scientific community, but the mechanism of natural selection remained under debate. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, connecting the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory is the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Note that the impact of Cuvier's work and the developing debate from then to the 1850s should be briefly described in the History of evolutionary thought section. .. dave souza, talk 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's bad, but to me, appearance/disappearance of species is kind of an arbitrary thing to focus on. Already in the later 18th century the fixity of species was being challenged by the diversity of life, and that was at least as important to the development towards evolution as the discoveries in the fossil record during the early 19th century. I can't figure out how to fairly represent a century's worth of very complex history in something appropriate for the lead. That's why I was restricting things to the immediate context of Darwin. I still think it would make sense to just jump right into the paragraph with "The theory of evo. by NS was explained ... 1858." Not trying to compress anything; just trying to avoid the complexities in the lead. Gnixon (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's how Encarta handled it, but they had room for two long paragraphs:

Gnixon (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out who wrote what here. I think I like G's first suggestion the best. Except I think the "but the mechanism of natural selection remained under debate" can go. It just seems like unnecessary detail to be discussing specific points of contention within the scientific community in the lead. We can and should mention this in the history section however. The point is, Darwin's work changed everything, and support for the concept of evolution (in one form or another) snowballed after that. Evolution is the subject of this article, not natural selection specifically, so perhaps the bit about acceptance of natural selection would go better in the lead of the specific natural selection article.
I recommend changing that one sentence to "Darwin's work soon led to universal acceptance of evolution within the scientific community." It may not capture every little nuance, but this is the lead so it doesn't have to... it's concise and certainly not inaccurate. Sheep81 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheep81 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed preposition to "within" as discussed above. Sheep81 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Added the paragraph by G with my suggestion to the article. Maybe it's not perfect yet but we can always tweak it and I think it's better than what's there already. Sheep81 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm down with that. Good call on changing "remained under debate." Gnixon (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
My only remaining criticism is that it's a bit choppy, but no suggestions for improvement come immediately to mind. Gnixon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)