Talk:Evolution/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Direction of evolution 2 Evolution and Falsification 3 Intro cleanup 4 Newton's Theory 5 Why 6 New question 7 Noodleman's changes 8 Fact versus theory 9 Evolution happened. 10 Omissions 11 Criticism of Evolution 12 Rem. new section 12.1 There is no goal of evolution 13 Survey of US beliefs in Evolution v divine creation 14 Uses of evolution 15 Commentary on recent vandalism 16 Abiogenesis 17 World Wide Acceptance of Evolution??? 18 Fact and Theories 19 Images 20 General comments 21 Origination of Organismal Form 22 "Impacts of theory" 23 AfD

Direction of evolution

I added this section in an attempt to dispel a common myth that I often come across. Many people believe that certain organisms are superior to other since they evolved more recently, or because they are more complex. Also, there is the myth that evolution will one day culminate in an ultimate species. These are both myths under the theory of evolution and I thought warranted some mention and that the direction of evolution would be an appropriate heading since we often all forget that each organism fulfilling its niche is a perfect organism for its present environment. I mean, Hallucenogenia must have made sense when it was alive even if we have no idea how it lived. --Waterspyder 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Evolution and Falsification

I accept Theory of Evolution as a scientific-fact because this has been confirmed by emperical evidence. But the article defines a scientific theory as a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation.

Here I am bit confused. How can, in theory, the theory of evolution be falsified? The mounting empirical evidence only confirms it. It is alright if the concept of falsification is not brought in to prove that the theory is scientific. But since the concept forms part of the article, it is necessary to explain it. May be, the user who contributed the portion thinks that it is self-evident. But it is not. I think it is hence advisable (or perhaps even necessary} to have it clarified in the article or atleast in the talk page. Will somebody take note of this? MANOJTV 09:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A theory is falifiable if it makes testable predictions, which evolutionary theory does. If a theory is "testable" it can either be supported, or falsified, by an experiment. The word "falsifiable" is linked - the link should provide adequate explanation. Guettarda 12:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a prediction th theory makes possible: if a new niche becomes availablee in an environment in which populations of a particular species live, one of those populations will diverge to create a new species (I am sure Guettards or Rikhurzen can reformulate this in a clearer and more precise way). In any event, this is precisely what happened to the Hawthorn bee (I think). SR

MANOJTV - Evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane was asked the very same question you just asked more than 40 years ago - what kind of evidence would disprove evolution? His answer was quite simple - if you were digging, and you found the fossil of a rabbit in precambrian-era rock, that would shoot a GIGANTIC gaping hole in evolution (which says that rabbits did not appear until long, long after precamrbian times). Evolution depends on no one ever discovering such a fossil, and if such a fossil were found, evolution as we know it would go into the dumpster. To date, no one has found any such evidence (or anything even close). →Raul654 06:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite Raul: Evolution would not be dumped so easily, certainly not by one such anomalous discovery. They would just put rabbits into pre-cambrian life forms and throw out the theory that rabbits are post-pre-cambrian, evolution is too well established to throw it out on one piece of anomalous evidence. It is precisley because evolution is so robust that it seems unfalsifiable. People just have a hard time imagining a scenario that would disprove it because it is such a simple corralary to so many basic things that we take for granted are true, (I am amazed at how people can fail to see that it is true, yet unquestionably accept so many things that directly imply it.). It's not impossible to think of a situation, but because evolution is such a simple corolarry to rather obvious things, the things that would really prove a flaw in the theory seem ridiculous.

For example a damning, if fantastic, piece of evidence would be something like finding that animals, including humans, really don't pass on genetic information, that we are all completely original when we are born. Of course we'd have to find out how animals are orgnized enough survive, and how what force causes that organization, but it's concievable, if remotely unlikely, that it would turn out genetic information just didn't exist--THAT would probably be reason to junk evolutionary theory. People underestimate how robust a theory it is (and how silly denial of it is). TO scrap it you'd have to scrap some very fundamental ideas we, and by "we" I mean everyone, creationists and all, all consider so obvious that to think of a world that is different is ludicrous. Evolution is probably the most unlikely theory to be proven untrue at it's core. --Brentt 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course in practice falsification is a tricky business. But Haldane's point is more that evolution does make various predictions for which observations going against them could be found. Whether that counts as falsification or not depends on the philosopher you ascribe to. --Fastfission 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This brings to light the issue that many may have with the first item: "The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor." I don't know how that specifically can be falsified. Is there any empirical evidence suggesting that single-celled organisms have ever evolved into multi-celled organisms?

There is plenty of evidence that all life shares a common ancestor, be it morphological, genetical, etc. Importantly there is an invocation of Ockham's Razor which states that the simplest explanation is the most likely. It would be falsified if someone proved that, based on the evidence, it was more likely that life had multiple origins, rather than a single one. Dunc|☺ 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Using Occam's Razor to justify single-celled organisms changing into multi-celled organisms would be fine, assuming we had evidence that multi-celled organisms had evolved from single-celled ones. We don't. I like the current route of this article stating evolution as a fact and then using modern synthesis as the theory that backs evolution. Absolutely love it. Also, I wanted to approve of whoever removed all aspects of abiogenesis from this. It simply didn't belong here and looked like a POV article written by a hardcore atheist bent on disproving God.

"Things just appearing" doesn't explain anything, and hence is not a simpler explaination. --DanielCD 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is based on several principles, but you don't have to discredit all of them - just one. For instance one alternate view of Evolution/Genetics stated that if the father had worked as a blacksmith and became very strong, then his children would be inherently stronger than they would have been if, say, the father had been a fisherman. This has been shown to be false (although it does contain a small element of truth).

It should also be pointed out that Ockham's Razor is only a general principle (like Murphy's Laws and not an scientific rule.--Andrew Hyde 10:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you did point that out, then I'd have to dispute its truth. The razor isn't just a good idea, it's the principle of parsimony, whcih tells us what we are obligated to accept.

We're certainly NOT obligated to accept parsimony, since it's sometimes wrong. In certain instances, it is often wrong. Andrew Hyde is correct. Graft 23:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The razor doesn't promise to tell us what's true; that's something nothing can promise. Rather, it tells us what's most likely to be true given the evidence available. Further evidence, evaluated parsimoniously, might show that our earlier conclusion is most likely incorrect. In short, the only thing that beats parsimony is more parsimony. Alienus 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro cleanup

I didn't want to slap an ugly "cleanup" tag on a feature article, but the intro really stinks. Maybe we can fix it quickly.

The intro glosses over the distinction between macroevolution - that, is the apperance of new species like house cats and lions emerging from some ancestral feline -- and microevolution, i.e., an existing species acquiring new charateristics without giving rise to a new species (like horse breeders getting a faster thoroughbred, but it's still a horse).

Worse, it brings in Lamarckism. This can only confuse the reader who is new to the topic and annoy the reader who already knows something about it. Uncle Ed 18:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Macro- and micro- evolution are terms and concepts not commonly used or found in science. The modern synthesis makes no such distinction. Their current use finds its origin in creationist literature and so it has no place in the article, much less the intro. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms' origin is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the terms are currently or have been used in scientific discourse. --goethean ॐ 19:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And they aren't. --Cyde 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A more accurate statement is: What is relevant is whether the terms are significantly used in scientific discourse. The provenance of an argument is always relevant. FeloniousMonk 19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a direct answer to the question, but a response I feel should be taken into consideration here.

Macroevolution is seen by many to be a term created by creationists to confuse the issue. That said, there is definately something to be said for it. A common argument I've heard to discredit the Theory of Evolution is that no new genes can form though evolution. In commonly understood genetics, existing genes can change (mutate) and can code for something new, but only if an existing piece of code is lost. The total number of genes cannot increase or decrease.

There are (proposed) mechanisms of evolution that have rather profound effects on DNA, by introducing additional genes. Some species of strawberry, for example, have over a hundred chromosomes, whereas others have only a single one. Additional chromosomes can come to be through multiplication of existing chromosomes. It is conceivable that over time, in this way, and through mutation of both chromosomes, vastly differing chromosomes can form.

In another way, genes can be added to the DNA of a living organism by a retrovirus. It is even conceivable that the rather remarkable concept of live birth in mammals is possible thanks to viral DNA that made it possible for the fertilised egg to attach itself to the mother.

Macroevolution might have special tricks that microevolution could only dream of.

My point: Evolution can be subdivided into macro- and microevolution, and indeed, I would. But I do not believe the introduction is the ideal place to start explaining this difference, as the basic concept remains the same for both. -- Ec5618 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You and Ed may find such a distinction compelling, but that doesn't change the fact that macro/micro distinction is not commonly considered a central concept in evolutionary biology, and that the current understanding of evolution, the modern synthesis, makes no such distinction whatsoever, and hence the macro/micro arguement does not warrant inclusion in the article. I've searched ERIC and other DBs on this issue for a number of years, as well as spoken to leading evolutionary biologists on the the topic of macro/micro vs. modern synthesis, and have yet to see one shred of significant, credible, and rigorous scholarly evidence that the macro/micro distinction is central to evolution. Again, the current understanding of evolution, the modern synthesis, makes no such distinction whatsoever. FeloniousMonk 20:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms are used in the literature, but, of course, they are not mechanistically distinguished. The same processes drive evolution in a species that drive it after a speciation event. Of course, that speciation even might be a change in bird song on population separated by tributaries of the Amazon, which could make the macroevolutionary change trivial...worth discussing in the article, yes (and it is), worth mentioning in the intro - I'd say no, it's too trivial, it doesn't require a separate mechanism. Guettarda 20:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms macro- and micro-evolution were probably created by creationists who had been backed into a wall and finally could no longer ignore the evidence supporting evolution. Nevertheless, evolution is more than just random mutation of existing gene sequences (even though evolution is commonly misunderstood to mean just that): there are mechanisms through which new genes could form. Again: evolution is more than random mutation (of individual genes) and natural selection. That's all.

I never sought to make the distinction between micro and macro evolution. But while (as Guettarda mentioned) there may not be a mechanistic difference between micro and macro evolution, there are definately different mechanisms at work in evolution, many of which transcend simple genetic mutation. In that context I suppose we could call simple gentic mutation micro-evolution and more complex mechanisms macro-evolution. But I'm not quite sure what my point is now. -- Ec5618 20:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There are difference processes - selection, drift and evo-devo. Mutations are one way of creating variation, and evolution acts on variation in populations. Change, even drastic change, without speciation would be microevolution (well, but then you have the problem of chronospecies). Minor change, with speciation, is macroevolution (like einkorn wheat-emmer wheat-bread wheat). If I had to guess, the distinction between micro and macro probably arose in conflict between reductionist molecular evolutionary biologists and holist palaeontologist-types, or between quantitative Fisherian types and palaeo- types, or some other cultural divide in within the field. Guettarda 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Lamarckism is clearly one of the original hypotheses of biological evolution. Why shouldn't it be referenced in the intro? Though I'll admit, the intro is a little forcedly worded around the concept. Perhaps it should be moved a few lines down. -- Ec5618 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now there's more on the early histor of evolution than there is about the concept itself. Passing on novel traits is not evolution, by itself -- that's just heredity. Evolution is the fact that passing on novel traits can result in speciation. I think some more time in the intro should be spent on the concept than currently is, and less on the history. Darwin and the mod synth are good enough for the intro. The rest is covered fine by the history section of the article. --Fastfission 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Fastfission is right on all points. Evolution is not the history of evolutionary science, any more than mathematics is the history of mathematics. We should be as current as we can be without glossing over different views in current work. --FOo 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. The introduction should be a definition of what it currently is, and maybe some interesting facts to catch someone's eye. Don't let it get turned into a mini-evolution article. --Ignignot 13:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a history of evolution article? I have read / seen books on the history of chemistry & history of biology. I'm interested in the history of mathematics, the history of medicine, and especially the history of science in general. Uncle Ed 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is considered settled already, but for my part I'm now of the mind that we should avoid macro/microevolution as terms and stick to talking about definite concepts like pheno/genotypic variation and speciation. There's good population genetics to guide us there, the terms are fairly well-defined and widely used, and seem to sketch out the same space that "macroevolution/microevolution" seek to occupy. Graft 18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution has been considered fact in the scientific world in recent years. That is true. Evidence has been found that proves evolution, and lots of it. However, new information has disproved this. For example, the genetic proof of evolution includes the amazing similarities found in the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. However, most of these genes are actually genes that determine the physical body makeup of the being. Humans obviously do not look nearly like chimpanzees. Genes have different effects on different bodies. And the disproving of evidence for evolution continues. Basically, what I am saying is that no matter what, evolution will always have a possibility of being false. It is not a subject that is completely true.

== make this article unbiased == (please do not assume i am a creationist, i may be undecided.)

I think it would be just to emphasise in this article the FACT that the theory of evolution is just a theory and not fact. No matter what your view on evolution: how strongly you are convinced by it, it would be sheer denial on anyones part to deny the wealth and mass of evidence that goes against the theoryof evolution. Please can anyone who edits this article please refrain from being ignorant and be responsable editors or i will be forced to put this article in the biased category. And i can highlight this article's bias very easily. It will be no effort on my part to get this in the bias category.

There has never been, for example, a transitional form that has not been refuted. "ah, by the creationists!" i hear you cry. "No", i reply, "between evolutionist!". Prove me wrong?!

I am happy for you to explain this theory after all it gave rise to the x-men cartoons, just keep it on the level of a widely accepted theory and do not make statements that this theory is fact.

This theory is an interpretive framework in which evolutionists interpret the facts and that is all. To prove my point creationists and those that hold to intelligent design theory use the same, that is, the identical, the very same facts that the evolutionists use to make their conclusions. It is only as a result of interpretation that the views are so different. Anyone who denys this to be the case is a lunitic, not able to reason or accept logic.

In repsonse to the guy who needs proof of "falsifiable hypothesises" read these articles: [[1]] and [[2]] and [[3]]

• You might want to take a look at our standards on WP:NPOV. This isn't the place to argue over the truth or lack of it for evolution or anything else. --Fastfission 12:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

this article doesn't mention creation but the creation article mentions evolution either the evolution article should mention cretion or neither article should mention each otherJats october 2

Why? Evolution is world-accepted scientific principle. Creationism is a tiny movement almost solely limited to the United States that has no scientific basis. Just because you have a view it doesn't mean it rates equal time. In fact there's a nice section explaining that fact in the NPOV policy here. DreamGuy 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You point of view, Dream Guy, is way out of line with the facts. In the words of Francis Bacon: A little science estranges a man from God, alot brings him right back again.

I'm afraid you and Mr. Bacon are the ones out of line. The belief in any kind of personal god and other supernatural forces has been shown to diminish significantly near the upper spectrum of the sciences: as of 1998 a mere 7% of the US scientists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in god. The majority are either outright atheists (72%) or don't care (21%)[4]. Refer, also, to these quotes by one physicist: "From the standpoint of a Jesuit priest, I am, of course, have always been an theist... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere - childish analogies." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." His name? Albert Einstein. Thus, it seems that a little God merely estranges a man from science, but a lot of it will break his senses." Shawnc 06:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My comment and the reply of the editor who didn't bother to sign aren't related at all. Evolution is a scientific principle, accepted throughout the world, backed up with copious amounts of evidence, set up in a way that it is falsifiable yet all new evidence that comes in continues to support it more and more. Creationism is a religious movement. The idea that someone should put religion as if it were a science into an article about science is just nonsense. Claims of religious belifs of scientists or lack thereof is a non-issue for the purposes of this article. DreamGuy 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(Response to above) I don't know where you're claiming to get your NPOV, but it's just not there. I'm not a creationist, but I still support a reasonable amount of the contrary evidence to evolution being shown. The creationism article mentions evolution - why does evolution get the soapbox? Amadameus

This article is about evolution. That's why evolution gets the soapbox. Creationism having references to evolution is a problem for its own talk page. Personally I think that argument is best left for creationism-evolution controversy. --Ignignot 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What evidence against evolution? If you have something solid, by all means, let's discuss its inclusion. Guettarda 19:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda, something that is evidence against evolution should be included, but as yet I've not seen any such evidence.

No evidence? Visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/  !!!

I believe that he was seeking evidence of a scientific nature. AiG is about religion.--Pasado 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, "Answers in Genesis" is a young earth creationist organization, which is just about the farthest from the physical evidence you can get. AiG doesn't just attack evolution, they also attack biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc. So they are so wrong it's ludicrous. For a thorough debunking of anything AiG has ever said check out this page. --Cyde 01:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Newton's Theory

The Newtonian Law of Gravity is also a theory; a theory being a set of principles against which falsifiable data can be recorded and analysed, and from which hypothothes can be proved or disproved. In other words I can't disprove the law of gravity simply by demonstrating that a helium-filled baloon goes up instead of down. Should equal space be alotted to the person who believes that the Law of Gravity is a farce? What is some of the "Wealth and mass of information that goes against the 'theory' of evolution"? I really am interested to know.

Bear with me and i will present it to you. In the meantime take a look at the Francis Bacon Quote above. JC

Isn't there a difference between Newton's law and Darwin's theory? With Newton's law of gravity, you can predict the future. "Mars will be here next week and there next month." It even predicts the path of undiscovered comets. A few weeks of observation of a comet between the orbits of Jupiter and Venus and we can very accurately predict where it will be after it swings around the sun.

Evolution has two "predictive" aspects. In the historical sense, it predicts what sorts of fossils may be discovered in the future. THis is different from astronomical observations, because a fossil is a record of an ancient event. It records an event that took place before the theory formulated and the "prediction" made.

In the contemporaneous sense (if that's the right word), the theory of evolution can predict what kinds of living things might come into being in the future. I think this is limited to fruit flies and bacteria, but I also hear they're doing work with frogs or mice that can regenerate severed parts like a starfish can - and then there's always cloning, which looks like a promising avenue of research. Uncle Ed 19:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Cloning. Did you know that many of the enzymes used in genetic engineering are derived from virusses that are capable of manipulating DNA and inserting their own DNA into a strand of genetic code? Did you know, that it is quite possible that virusses have contributed a lot of DNA to our genome (gradually), among other things facilitating the formation of the uterus?

Or that some species of strawberry are diploid, while others are decaploid? Through a rather common error, in plants atleast, a chromosome is duplicated. The identical chromosomes will mutate differently though, over generations, and might become unrecognisable.

All of which shows that it is quite possible for new genes to be introduced. The DNA of an organism can become longer or more complex over generations. Evolution of new species is not as unlikely as you seem to think it is.

Also, evolution is predictive, though not in a way that is useful to you on a daily basis. For example, by analysing a sample of evolving bacteria, we might find features in those cells that remain constant throughout, enabling us to create drugs against them. On a larger scale, we could say with reasonable certainly that no man will suddenly sprout wings. Is this not predictive? No exceptions to this rule have ever been found, which is the basis of falsifiability.

And, just nitpicking here, but obviously astronomy deals largely with things from the past. Starlight is ancient, after all. -- Ec5618 23:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why

Excuse, this segment is completely incoherent with the overall purpose of the evolution article. Why is it here?

In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation.

These two sentences belong in the scientific theory article. If evolution is a scientific theory, then wouldn't it be more sensible to just state that "evolution is a scientific theory?" Salva 22:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who wrote that, but I assume it's in there to head off one of the most common objections to (and misconceptions about) evolution, which goes "well, it's just a theory, so how come scientists are all going on about it like it was fact?" --Ashenai (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So which is it? Fact or theory? It's just very confusing, that's all, and the segment seems irrelevant and extraneous. Salva 22:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the scientific theory expanation should remain in the article. Evolution is a theory which seeks explain emperically verifiable facts. I believe it does a pretty good job at explaining them. It's as simple at that.

It's a theory. But so is the theory of gravity, or set theory in mathematics. :)

And I agree that it seems awkward there. On the other hand, I do understand why it's there. I'm pretty indifferent about it, myself, but I don't know what everyone else thinks about removing it. --Ashenai (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh...pretty much everything is a theory in science. That's just how science is. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And while we are on the subject of fact-vs-theory, gravity, which everyone considers to be a "fact", is probably the least understood and most-undefined entity in all of physics. →Raul654 04:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But that doesn't make gravity itself any less real. I think this is actually a good parallel for explaining that even though there are controversial issues about evolution, the existence of evolution itself simply isn't debated in the scientific community. --Ashenai (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Set theory though is just a name for a branch of mathematics, and the "theory" of sets is nothing more than consequences of the basic axioms of sets. Thus in this case, the theory of sets is more or less the "facts" of sets. This ability to prove without a doubt separates mathematics from the sciences. -- Shawn M. O'Hare 11:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, I will go ahead and omit the following from the evolution article:

In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation.

This might certainly be of use somewhere in scientific theory. I hate to do away with it - it's very well written. Any further ideas would be appreciated. Salva 14:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea: leave it in. It's there because it's a question that comes up frequently enough in the context of evolution that it deserves mention in this article, even if it is slightly out of place. Graft 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Let me give a short antithesis: if in the socialism article I wanted to say that "socialism is a form of Communism," and then started a denotation of Communism as a political philosophy and explained what a form of Communism was, then I would have already compromised the direction of the article. This is very un-Encyclopædic. If people want to know what a form of Communism is, then they refer to the respective article; if people want to know what a scientific theory is, than they should refer to scientific theory. It doesn't matter how many people are confused about the true meaning or how often the subject is brought up in further debates.Salva 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it there. It may seem a bit out of place, however it is a valid response to the frequent creationist trolls who try any tactic in their attempts to weaken the concept. Vsmith 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, rrright - I see your logic now. Yes...we musn't let the "trolls" weaken the concept. Salva 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The concept belongs in the article, because it comes up in reference to evolution very often. Moving within the article and rewording I have no problem with, although I can't see another obvious home for it, and it is already well written. Also, if we take it out people will try to fill its absence. Right now it is well written, I would rather not have someone else replace it 2 months from now with something worse. And in response to your "fact" vs. "theory" question above, evolution is a fact. It is directly observable just like an apple falling from a tree, because it is defined as any change in the frequency of alleles of a population (which happens every single time an organism dies or is born). Natural selection and the modern synthesis are theories that attempt to explain the observed fact of evolution, along with other facts, such as speciation and the current diversity of life. And there is no need to use socratic irony on the talk page, just say what you mean next time. Some people might get the wrong idea. --Ignignot 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also no need for ruthless depreciation and namecalling of legitimate objectors. Would you name me a "troll" if I claimed that I had evidence that challenged a scientific theory, or at least a propositional axiom for reform in a given area of that theory? Evolution happens and is a fact, yes, but believers in the hypotheses of say, spontaneous generation, have ambiguized the former with the latter. ID creationists like me are trying to disambiguize the way the theory is taught, while also arguing from the perspective that life is too complex to have arisen from randomality. That's it! And if I do say what I mean, it would just be a futile effort, because then you will simply call me a "troll" and then the discussion is pretty much over. Why? Who knows. Salva 01:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't talking about calm objectors who bring their ideas to discussion first, but instead people who simply replace whole sections of the article with some web link. However, I doubt any content in the article will ever make those people go away because they are entirely focused on what they want to say, and probably only glance at the article itself. Of course, the problem with evidence against the modern synthesis is that it would have to come from a scientific peer reviewed journal to be taken seriously, and a journal would be very reluctant to publish an article like that. On the other hand, all the evidence brought by the creationist camp that I have seen is from pseudo-science books or the Bible, neither of which is going to be accepted. So when people constantly bring forward something other than a scientific journal, it just makes you desensitized to what any objectors have to say. Also, unless I am horribly mistaken, the modern synthesis does not explicitly say how life started (although it does imply it).

And since we're now way off course, I'd like to add an observation. A while back I spent about a year with some Christian fundamentalists. Earth 5000 years old, home schooled, studying the Bible at least once a week, the whole deal. Basically I was there to learn how they look at things, because usually when you see a completely different viewpoint externally you can see things about it that the people within it can't see, and after you see those things in other people you can see when people within your own viewpoint do them. One thing that really stood out was when they patted themselves on the back, trying to dispell their own uncertainties. It honestly made me a little sick to see an American middle class describing himself as "not rich." But I'm not bringing this up in reference to you Salva, instead I'm talking about how the same thing happens to those that hold the "scientific" viewpoint, and is rampant in this talk page. Then again, I'm probably guilty of the same hubris. --Ignignot 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that I have definately learned a LOT in the past year or so, and have come to a better grasp of the political debate that rages between creation/evolution in the United States. The scientific evidence of the evolution of species is difficult to deny, but we are certainly a long way off from having a true idea of what powers or forces or whatever were involved in the origination of life. This is the focal point of most arguments between ID scientists and evolutionary scientists today. The fact that evolution happens is indeed observable, testable, and undeniable to any person who has studied all the evidence at certain length. That's why I'm saying that the argument posed by many "creationists" is still quite valid. Most of them no longer challenge the current mandate of the mainstream scientific establishment; they are legitimate objectors to the supposition that life arose from nonliving matter. Just remember - American Christians still constitute a majority in the U.S. Perhaps that is why Darwinist atheists feel that it is so difficult to push their beliefs down our throats. You don't have to agree with fundamentalist Christians. But try to show a little respect for a balancing of power and opinions - in the political arena and especially in the scientific arena. Salva 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the question of whether or not a discussion of what a "theory" is belongs in this article on "evolution", I propose that it belongs in a subsection on the debate surrounding whether or not evolution is true, and not where it is now, in a description of what the theory of evolution is.

Above unsigned comment by User:67.87.13.181

OK, sorry about the edit conflict a bit ago - it happens. Now, just what do you mean by true and how do you establish scientific truth without a discussion of theory and the scientific evidence supporting the theory? The theory of evolution is the why of all the observed facts of evolution. In view of the confusion over the concept by the general public (and the blatant pushing of that confusion by creationists) a discussion of the basics of scientific theory and evidence is quite appropriate in the article. And not in some debate section on truth. The debate you refer to is covered in another article - we don't need to rehash it here. Vsmith 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Just as a note: I think I wrote it, and yes, it was because people kept coming in and asking "Is it a fact or a theory?" five times a day. The point was to make more clear the difference between the two easily-confused concepts. If you have a better way of doing it, please feel free to edit it, but it's clear that the information is necessary, by the sheer number of questions about it. --Fastfission 22:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the debate is well covered in the article Creation-evolution controversy. Keeping with the theme of scientific theories, how about the following minor modification

Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology it has completely replaced earlier scientific theories for the origin of species, such as Lamarckism.--Nowa 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Why? The earlier scientific theory of creationism was replaced along with Lamarckism within the science of biology by the theory of evolution. There is no question about that. The creationism of today is a religious concept that some adherents want to scientify. It is a religious belief, not a scientific subject. The sentence is quite accurate as it is. Vsmith 02:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but there are many ID creationists who are not entirely motivated by religious convictions. This is a tricky sentence that is difficult to argue against from the creationist perspective, because the word "life" was formerely replaced with "species," hence it maintains its factual integrity. The modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining speciation. However, the sentence is still very mischievious because it indirectly implies that all forms of creationism have been replaced by evolutionary theory in mainstream science. This is untrue - there are many scientists who refer to themselves as ID advocates, but at the same time hold that the Earth is millions of years old. The division is created primarily with 1. the origin of life argument, and 2. the micro/macro evolution argument (does natural selection create new phlyla, species, etc.) No irrefutable verdict has been reached on either of these two arguments in science - it is blasphemy for either side to claim that there has been. My opinion is that we should find a different way to structure that sentence so that when one reads it, they do not get the feeling that evolution has replaced other explanations for the origin of life. It's mandatory that the clarity of controversial articles, like Creationism and Evolution be upheld, and I don't believe that the statement in its current form is clear enough for our readers. Salva 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding comments by Vsmith: You are right. The "creationism" of today is not the same as the "creationism" that Darwin's theory replaced. That's why I thought it better to remove the reference to avoid confusion.

Regarding comments by Salva: No geologist holds that the Earth is millions of years old. The best estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.55 billion years. Nowa 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As to the origin of life, as has repeatedly been stated, the modern synthesis, predicated as it is on DNA and its mutation, inheritance and genetics, obviously has nothing to say about what preceded that. Evolution began with the LUCA (last univeral common ancestor). Where that came from is a separate question. Graft 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nowa on the proposed revision. Salva 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have a second?--Nowa 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Salva's justification - the sentence explicitly states that evolution replaced creationism as an explanation for speciation and variation. What's wrong with that? Graft 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with taking the word "creationism" out? Salva 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See Whitewash →Raul654 20:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See plausible deniability Salva 22:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, you have my vote. Salva

The proposed sentence is focused on the fact that the modern synthesis has displaced earlier scientific theories regarding the origin of the species. Someone who views current creationist theories as being unscientific should object to having creationism listed since it would imply that creationism, even early creationism, is a scientific theory. One the other hand, someone who views current creationist theories as being scientific would object to having it in there since it would imply that modern synthesis has replaced current creationists theories among its adherents, which it has not. Either way, the public is best served by not having "creationism" listed, since it adds nothing to the point being made and deleting it reduces unnecessary antagonism.--Nowa 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Still looking for one more supporter to the new language.--Nowa 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - added a bit of clarification to avoid confusing YECs, now can we get over this nonsense. Vsmith 03:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for proposed wording changes. It would be best to reach consensus here, however, before making unilateral changes to article. --Nowa 13:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You're most welcome. But, why not clarify while the bickering - er... consensus reaching - continues? Do you want the YECs to remain confused? Vsmith 15:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Nowa's statement in the paragraph above Vsmith's, "since it would imply that modern synthesis has replaced current creationists theories among its adherents": almost of modern biology implicitly assumes an evolutionary perspective. If you are looking at Tobacco Mosaic Virus proliferation in different species of Nicotiana, the fact that the virus is better able to infect other members of the same genus, and less able to infect other members of the Solanaceae (i.e., same family), and unable to infect plants in other families is a random coincidence unless you assume evolution. But far more importantly, you need to assume that the storage of information in DNA or RNA is a distinct occurrence in each species. You cannot assume that studies in gene regulation in one species predict gene regulation in another species where the studies have not been replicated without assuming evolution - to do otherwise would be to make a logically flawed inference. So, all biology assumes evolution, except the handful of publications which challenge it (1? 2?) Read what I posted before about this - we're talking about <0.000025% of published papers in biology. So, I would say that the original wording stands - in science evolution replaced creationism - be it 18th century creationism, or 21st century creationism. Guettarda 15:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the other part of Nowa's objection - it's true that the epistemological framework of science has also undergone development over the past 150 years, so that what passes for "science" then is not what would do so today. This makes the question somewhat dicey, since creationism filled the role of a scientific theory, and naturalism was not a required principle of science. Meanwhile, belief in the word of the Bible, in some respects, was. To avoid confusion and length discussion of this conundrum it might be best if we merely said "replaced earlier accepted theories" rather than "replaced earlier accepted scientific theories". ? Graft 18:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Creationism (e.g. God creating all species within a seven day period about 5,000 years ago), was NOT a widely accepted explanation of the origin of species among 19th century biologists in general and Darwin’s contemporaries in particular. True? If not true, can you provide references?--Nowa 21:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See Ernst Mayr's book The Growth of Biological Thought. In Chapter 11, Mayr said, "creationism, at least in England, was a dominant "scientific" school in the 1850s". However, there have been many times and places when scientists have adopted positions that are not supported by objective evidence. Just because a scientist claims to be scientific in holding a belief, it does not mean that they have built their belief upon objective evidence and sound reasoning. This is why "science" and "scientific" start showing up inside quotation marks. Most of Darwin's contemporaries told themselves that it was "scientific" to believe in special creations (by Darwin's time, the fossil evidence made it clear to "scientific" creationists that there had to have been more than one creation). The idea of many special creations was the result of adopting the religiously-motivated assumption that new species could be created and then trying to fit that assumption to the geological and fossil evidence. From the perspective of not being trapped in the assumption of special creations of species, it is tempting to call pre-Darwin "science" a form of protoscience, like alchemy. Darwin found a way to put evolutionary thought on a naturalistic (scientific) foundation, without special interventions or creations. --JWSchmidt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, Thank you for the reference and explanation. I am now happy with the wording of the paragraph. --Nowa 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the current wording is inaccurate - it suggests that evolution only displaced 18th & 19th century creationism. This implies that it has not displaced 20th/21st century creationism. I find this to be a misleading qualifier. Guettarda 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

And this is precisely why I have changed the paragraph back. It should either state that evolution has replaced creationism completely (perhaps it could be qualified by starting the sentence with the line Within the realm of science, or with words to that effect?) or removed from the article altogether. Doing anything else seems to me to be pandering towards creationists. Aaarrrggh 22:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a question of Wiki protocol for both Wsmith and Aaarrrggh. If the wording of a sentence or paragraph in an article is under discussion, and if the current wording does not suffer from a gross defect, such as factual inaccuracy, shouldn’t it be left as is until consensus is reached? --Nowa 01:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's more a matter of etiquette than anything else. Graft 02:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't be a despot, Graft. Salva 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And that etiquette would lean towards leaving the original version - not the altered one with "18th and 19th century". With regards to Salva's latest change, I don't see how the alteration was the "agreed upon" version. It's inaccurate and misleading, as I have said before. Guettarda 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because we had reached a consensus, and the new version was not misleading. What about the ID movement? This is a form of creationism, is it not? As far as I know, many scientists fully acknowledge its validity, and a handfull more are proponents of it. All the more, would you mind stating why you believe the edit was "inaccurate and misleading?" Because your previous statement seemed to lack in substance. Salva 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I don't see how we could have had consensus if so many people disagree. As for the rest of it - as I said before - in science, evolution has replaced all other explanations - effectively all biology not only assumes evolution: without evolution biology is not a science, it's just gratuitous animal cruelty and "stamp collecting". To say that evolution has replaced 18th and 19th century explanations is to suggest that there are modern non-evolutionary explanations in science - there are not, as evinced by the numbers I cited higher up the page. Guettarda 03:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I don't think terms like despot are appropriate; Graft has not been acting tyranically but is instead engaging in a civil discussion. I removed the 18th- and 19th-century qualifiers from the text, as it seems to imply that 20th-century creationism still is a contender within the field of biology. I don't believe there is any need to make this sort of distinction. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... this is a fine mess :-) I added the 18th and 19th century qualification a while back for two reasons:

First the phrase, completely replaced earlier accepted explanations, implies that modern creationism was accepted if we leave out the 18th & 19th - and this is not true. The accepted explanations of pre-Darwinian science/natural philosophy did include versions of creationism - those were replaced. The modern creationism is a different critter and is not an accepted explanation in any view of science - it is simply an irrelevant fantasy.

My second reason, to quell unneeded quibbling here, was a failure it seems.

The qualification seems to have been misinterpreted by several viewpoints here. Go ahead and remove the 18th/19th phrasing, but if you do then delete the word accepted also.

Vsmith 03:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the edit history, Salva wrote some disparaging comments, to which Guettarda and knowledge-seeker respond below. Salva then deleted his inflammatory remarks. Duncharris then restored them. If my reconstruction of events is wrong, I apologize to all parties involved. But if my reconstruction is correct, my interpretation is that Salva deleted his own remarks in a conciliatory gesture. Duncharris, Salva has a right to delete what he himself had written. Of course I cannot be sure what his motives were, but in the spirit of assuming good faith I am supposing that he repended of some of the things he wrote. That is admirable, certainly an example I should follow more often. Please note that he did not delete Guettarda's and Knowledge Seeker's admonishments, in other words, Salva was not "whitewashing" history. If you think I am mistaken or acting out of place, okay, but at least do me the courtesy of explaining why. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You know better than to engage in personal attacks. Funny, how you single out the Indians and then call us racists. Nice one. Talk like a reasonable person and then back-stab? Nice going, dude. Figure you can attack the non-white people here, and hide behind accusations of racism? Your words and deeds show the kind of person you really are! Guettarda 04:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Salva! Please treat other users with civility and respect! These comments are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Vsmith's worries - I think the formula, "replaced other theories for the origin of species such as Lamarckism and creationism." solves most of the problems. There certainly is an issue of conflating modern and 19th century creationism, but this is perhaps a minor sin, and only very circumlocutiously implied. Graft 05:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The Vsmith “18th 19th century” version of this sentence is the only single version that has multiple editor endorsements (myself, Salva and Vsmith) and appears to be factually correct. I recommend we continue to support it until such time as another version achieves greater consensus support on this talk page.--Nowa 17:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The original version has the endorsement of many people, including those who have been reverting to it. Vsmith withdrew his support, and Salva seems only interested in personal attacks on other editors. It's factually misleading, and has been removed several time because of that. Guettarda 17:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't you post the exact version you feel that there is consensus on. If more than three people endorse it on this talk page, then that will be the most endorsed version and I will support it on the article page as well.--Nowa 17:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've been following this for a couple of weeks and I have to jump in on the side of removing the 18th/19th century qualifier and going back to the original version. Since that makes four endorsers by my count (Graft, Guettarda, KnowledgeSeeker and myself) I assume that Nowa won't object when I revert back to the original wording. --Varith 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Graft actually proposed a slightly different version according to his posting above, but unless he objects I will accept that he agrees with the current wording and that this is the consensus position--Nowa 20:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC).

The phrase "of the 18th and 19th centuries" adds nothing useful. There never has been any objective evidence for special creations of species. Before Darwin, creationism was accepted by many naturalists without objective evidence. Current supporters of creationism still do not offer any objective evidence to support special creations of species; nothing has changed from pre-Darwin times to now. Creationism remains an attempt to fit the facts to a religious belief. --JWSchmidt 21:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

New question

I would like to add a section to this article called: "Evidence that challenges the theory of evolution" or something to that affect would anyone object to this? Please let me know so i can get started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.102.67 (talk • contribs) October 5, 2005.

Would you care to outline your proposed changes here on the Talk page? Guettarda 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that such a proposal should be outlined here first. Barnaby dawson 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well let's hear it lad! I would love to contribute. Salva 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please discuss your ideas here first. And sign up for a username so we can better respond to your information and concerns. Vsmith 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to sign up and get a username so you can recognise me, and get on with the proposal. Many thanks. JC.

Please bare in mind that biblical quotations are not forms of evidence. We await your assault with baited breath... Aaarrrggh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Noodleman's changes

Regarding my recent reversion - I don't think it's appropriate to delete the intro to the "scientific theory" section. If you feel it is notably lacking a significant theoretical component, by all means let us know what that is. If not - no cause to remove it. Also, the above discussion clearly indicates why the discussion of scientific theories ought to be retained.

As to "immigration and emigration", this is fine, but does not include the full range of possible changes in population, e.g., expansion, contraction, bottlenecks, etc. Something more generic like "changes in population structure" is more appropriate, if a bit obtuse. Also I see no reason to elide mention of gene flow. Graft 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I find noodleman's version:

The modern theory of evolution was first discussed in terms of natural selection in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

More accurate than the curent version:

The development of the modern theory of evolution began with the introduction of natural selection in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

There's no need to postulate that Darwin's theory is "modern", while earlier theories were something else. --goethean ॐ 20:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree the current version is a bit crusty; however, the sense I think we should impart is that Darwin's contributions form only a part of the "modern theory", that is, the theory as it stands today. Obviously there's a whole history of biology that preceded Darwin, but it's generally recognized as a singular shift in thinking on the subject. However, it's not the WHOLE of the modern theory (as emphasized in the subsequent paragraph), which is what I object to about Noodleman's phrasing. I'm not particularly attached to the obviously ugly phrasing of the current version, though, since it clearly isn't doing its job. Graft 21:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Fact versus theory

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. [5] WAS 4.250 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change. [6] WAS 4.250 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Evolution happened.

Nobody disputes microevolution anymore. There's no question about it. Evolution is happening. To most, macroevolution is just a matter of time and scale.

Take for example the 'theory of gravity.' (I'm being serious here) We don't really know how gravity works, but we know that gravity is happening. We have theories as to how it works, but they will always be just theories. There's still no 100% guarentee that the next time I drop something it'll fall to the ground.

So in the same light, evolution happened. How it happened, we're not entirely sure (although we've got a pretty good idea), but we know it happened. There's too much evidence.

Similarly, it's pointless to worry about creationism. We are evolving (however slowly). Maybe god fast forwarded the first few million years, nobody knows. And we can't ever prove what happened either way. To be on the safe side though, let's teach about those million years (since something clearly happened).

Well, that, or some deity's just messing with us, in which case there's really no point to worrying about it.

(I was not responsible for writing the preceding unsigned statements) -- Yes, Shouldn't we still remain incredulous as to the precise means by which life originated? Why is it reasonable for either side, creationist or evolutionist, to lay claim to what they deem an infallible explanation worthy of a science classroom or an encyclopedia article? Salva 19:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Macroevolution and microevolution are creationist PR terms. Real scientists (unlike agenda-pushing creationist) make no such distinction. →Raul654 21:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, real scientists do distinguish between micro and macro evolution (the distinction is important for the debates concerning Steven Jay Gould's last book). But they do not use these terms the way creationists do. Strictly speaking, the difference between the two is relative, not absolute (just the scale of change; the processes are the same -- according to most evolutionary scientists, again, see Gould's book). To the point, we have observed both micro- and macro-evolution occur this past century. As for the original origin of life, I do not think the modern synthesis has anything to say. From a scientific and from a philosophical point of view, the fundamental problem with intelligent design is that it does not explain anything, it just pushes the phenomenon in need of explanation further back. Specifically, let's say an intelligent designer accounts for the varied species of life on earth. What accounts for the intelligent designer? What processes created the designer? If you answer is "it can't be evolution" and you fall back on "another intelligent designer, you keep going back -- who created the designer that created the designer? This is why ID falls apart as a scientific theory. It leaves us with a greater problem than the one it purports to solve. And if your answer is "an intelligent designer that has no cause, or is its own cause" then you have retreated from intelligent design back into creationism, that is, back into religion. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC).

In my humble opinion, we are not able to explain everything. We are limited. For example:

• After Gödel's theorems, we know there are theorems in arithmetic (and theories that include it) that we cannot prove. Now, we know, we cannot prove the consistency/inconsitency of set theory
• Turing showed there are problems that we cannot solve (for example to decide if a programs halt or not).
• The Omega number, is a real number defined by Chaitin that exposes a lot of our limitations. Its value depends on the Chaitin computer we choose, supposing that our set theory is sound, with some Chaitin computers we can know only finite bits of it, and there is a Chaitin computer with an associated Omega number of which, we can not know a single bit. See http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS//researchreports/104robert.pdf
• Since our theories and thoughs are encoded in the material world where we live (for example in our brains), in my humble opinion this material world is more complex than our theories, and then we are not able to explain it, but just parts of it.
• If we cannot understand/know so many things, how do we want to know the origin of God?
• In the article it is accepted that we don't know about the origin of life. In my humble

opinion we will not know about it and we are not able to create life. The best explanation given up to know for the origin of life is that it was designed by an intelligent being (if you cannot think in God, think it was an ET).

• Are you able to put evolution in a mathematical framework? To assert that evolution is a fact (like you do in the article), you should be able to prove that it is possible to obtain a complex system is possible with an unguided/random/stochastic process like selection and random mutations (the probability of obtaining a complex system should be big, right?). However it is not possible to do that in any mathematical framework as it is proved in http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.04.ID_Orthodoxy_Heresy.htm
• Please before saying that evolution is a fact, prove that speciation is possible (with high probability) from unguided processes like natural selection and random mutations. Unsigned comments by 200.119.35.79.

You don't understand science at all. The only time you can ever prove anything is in mathematics. You should go read up on The TalkOrigins Archive. It will help clear up a lot of your misunderstandings of science. And yes, evolution is a fact, much in the same way that radioactive decay is a fact. We observe both, therefore they are facts. The theory of evolution is the framework by which we explain the fact of evolution using descent with modification and natural selection. --Cyde 16:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

1) You didn't sign your comments, nor did you log in with a name. 2) Arguments against the completeness or omniscience of formal logic are irrelevant to evolution. Likewise, attempts at burden tennis are boring and futile. The points you bring up have been routinely used by creationists and refuted by scientists, so there is nothing novel or valuable to them. 3) Speaking of which, this isn't even a debate forum, so why are you bringing these up? You're trolling in the wrong waters, but I hear there's a talk.origins newsgroup where you'll fit right in. Maybe you should seek it out and leave us all alone. Alienus 13:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right that proof in the mathematical sense applies to math, not science. In science, if we speak of proof, we mean sufficient evidence. In short, the guy doesn't just fail to understand science, but fails to use the meaning of terms as appropriate to their context. Of course, he links to creationist sites, so this is to be expected. Alienus 18:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Omissions

This article seems pretty blinkered. It deals purely with the theory and it's effects. To completely ignore other theories sugests igrorence or fear. I know your not igrorent, fuck knows why you should be scared (sorry about swearing but I was trying to avoid a God awful pu...Shit!). No matter how strong the arguments for are. There has been contrevousy throughout the theory's history and even the Spherical Earth article mentions other theories. josh 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What other theories are not mentioned? I'd say alternatives are well mentioned and linked to. What hasn't been addressed? Guettarda 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This article deals with evolution. It shouldn't mention 'other theories', even if other Theories did exist. You may be looking for origin belief, which covers different (historical) beliefs just as spherical Earth does, or a related article. -- Ec5618 06:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning other theories gives the article context. Even a link to the origin belief article could give the reader a better understanding of the arena this theory entered. It has undergone continual contrevousy and yet this is also not metioned. The reaction a person/entity/theory prevokes is as important as the person/entity/theory itself. Patrick Matthew originaly suggested this idea but because it prevoked no reaction whatsoever he is now largely forgotten. This article seems to be lacking a section about the massive impact the theory has had. josh 15:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: there are no other Theories. Evolution is it. It fits all the data. No other theory (meaning concept, such as creationism, intelligent design or flying spaghetti monsterism) comes close. No other Theory (meaning scientific Theory) exists.

Now, as for your other points. This article references Social implications of the theory of evolution and Creation-evolution controversy. Perhaps we should more clearly refer to the first. But this article shouldn't devolve into an article about the 'controversy' surrounding evolution, especially since there is no scientific controversy, but rather a failure on the part of scientists to properly explain evolution to the ignorant masses. -- Ec5618 15:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok perhaps my wording was slightly off. Although i'd love to see the flying spaghetti monsterism in action. This theory goes well beyond the realms of science. The ignorant masses will continue to ignore this thoery if articles like this continue to ignore their claims. You need to address them head on. I'm not suggesting that it should be about the controversy but to pretend that their has never been one makes this article seem incomplete at best. Anyone on the side of creationism is more likely to look at sections supporting their claim. If this is put along side reasons the position is scientificly incorrect as well as the vast supporting evidence to this fact in the rest of the article enlightenment is more likely (even if still marginal). josh 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse my POV language in this post.

You have a point. A section detailing the controversy should be added. I am not sure about wording the details of evolution in the main body of the article to address the concerns of , pardon me, the ignorant masses. I don't think it would improve the article to have notes such as "this fact debunks the creationist allegation that life violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in the article. Still, a section:

== Societal impact of evolution ==

Bit about evolution being coined as a mechanism of God, but being perceived as blasphemy. Bit about creation science having been designed to counter the influence of evolution. Same for ID. Bit about creationist arguments being notoriously patently silly, and reeking of argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity. Linking to all the relevant articles. -- Ec5618 19:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. josh 14:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The job of wikipedia is not to change people's minds, but to present factual information with as little POV as possible. If people want to ignore the article on evolution, that's their own choice. I still think that the article on the creationism-evolution debate is more than enough and that such discussion is not worth more than a small mention in the evolution article, along with something pointing people to the article specifically on the debate. --Ignignot 17:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Science is the meandering search for truth. And a science article should not be a showcase for political or religious issues. Saying that modern synthesis has replaced earlier accepted explanations like creationism gives that particular 'other theory' all the space it deserves in a science article. --Pasado 07:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Evolution

"It is important to note, however, that evolution has been disproven as a scitentific theory many times, and that it carries no true scientific application. All apparent proofs of evolution have been disproven or uncovered as hoaxes. It is a purely religious ideology."

I decided to remove this until editor presented evidence that is alluded to in the statement. Psy guy ^(talk) 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

When I thought I removed it, but another editor did it first. :-) Psy guy ^(talk) 22:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep. That was clearly vandalism. Just ignore it. There's no reason to mention it here, even. Just revert it, and hope ignorance is terminal. -- Ec5618 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Rem. new section

There is no goal of evolution

Species are constantly evolving. There is no devolving. Even if an organism evolves a trait that was characteristic of an ancestor, this is still an evolutionary adaptation and should not be associated with any sort of reversal.

Additionally, evolution does not always create organisms that are increasingly suited to their environment, and will often do the opposite. Organisms that evolve that do not suit their environment typically die off.

There is no correct or ultimate goal for evolution to achieve.

---

Not only is it horribly written, it doesn't seem to make a point. The concept of devolution may deserve a mention, the rest is already explained in the article. -- Ec5618 22:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Find an outside, notable source that says something about "no devolution" and quote them. Otherwise its a bit too much of "original research". FuelWagon 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I may have been a little too tired when I wrote that. Essentially what I mean to say is there is no intentional direction for evolution. This was a concept drilled into me by Jim Fenwick, PhD and Professor at the University of Ottawa (who did indeed say repeatedly "There is no such thing as de-evolution". In Discover Biology by Michael L. Cain, Hans Damman, Robert A. Lue and Carol Kaesuk Yoon, (WW Norton & Co, New York: 2000), on page 296 it is summarized under the heading "Biological Evolution: The Sum of Genetic Changes". Key highlights include a very important explaination of evolution as descent with modification. The work explains that evolution does not have a "designer", but is simply a function of the way in which heritable characteristics are passed on. The main reason I find it nessecary is because several people are approaching me to clarify "what they learned on wikipedia" and direction of evolution can honestly be a one-liner included somewhere in the article, but I do feel that it is necessary to at least mention that evolution does not necessarily occur for an ultimate goal ("is not teleological" as Fastfission phrases it). Thanks --Waterspyder 02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it clarifies anything, at the very least. --Fastfission 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Check here for more on devolution.—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaff. Fuel Wagon, you have it backwards. Find a source that argues for devolution (I mean, outside of punk rock) and then we can include it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, creationism should go in this article long before Devo does. I say no mention of devolution at all. Graft 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• A line saying that evolution is not teleological (i.e. orthogenesis) is fine and perfectly germane, but not much more than a line is needed in this article. "Devolution" as a term is not scientific in general though recapitulation theory is (though it is not discussed very much these days). But I don't think it needs to be in this article. --Fastfission 20:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Dollo's Law try to preclude devolution? Just namedropping. -- Ec5618 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I had never actually heard of that law before, but yeah, that summarizes the gist of it. --Waterspyder 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. I think that sounds like a pretty speculative and perhaps even telelogical "law" though. I don't see why an organism couldn't re-evolve traits which were once evolved and later lost by a series of predecessor organisms. --Fastfission 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It can, but the point is that the organism cannot retrace it's steps to gain that trait, it must obtain the trait through new selective pressures. --Waterspyder 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is more a statement on random walks than anything else... Graft 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Survey of US beliefs in Evolution v divine creation

I wouldn't dream of adding this to the article, but I'll leave it here for the benefit of the readership:

(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election. [7]

--bodnotbod 06:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that most Americans are *still** intelligent - despite many years of socialist propaganda from the media and educationalists. Good for you!RossNixon 10:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So... 51 percent, with, I imagine, 50% reachable under margin of error, is "most?" Additionally, how is the further "3 in 10" who believe in "Evolution: a Yahweh, Inc. Product" supposed to add weight to the anti-evolution side of the teeter-totter? If they believe in evolution, wouldn't most in the scientific and secular communities pretty much regard their expanded opinions as to the "why" behind evolution as irrelevant and outside the scope of the discussion? That soundbite uses strange statistics and logic; it's looks like the same group who redefined "mandate" in the US are taking a crack at "most."

In other news, I'm going to go add a notice in the light article that "most American housewives in Upper Michigan do not believe that light is both a wave AND a particle!" Topical relevance be damned!

Fox1 12:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Uses of evolution

It might be a good idea to add a section giving more information about how the evolution theory is actually used. (Creating new pesticides for example.) Bertus 12:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess you mean natural selection. Evolution is of no use to anyone - well, except for non-scientific purposes (racial hatred, ethnic cleansing etc) RossNixon 03:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, much of modern medicine, from cell-signaling pathways to antibiotic development, is based on the framework of evolutionary theory. Of course, genetics and inherited diseases and such are intricately tied to the concept of evolution. It might be difficult to come up with specific examples since biology as a whole rests on evolution—similar to the awkwardness of describing how the repulsion of negative charges or the conservation of energy are used; they permeate the field and underly most if not all applications. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to recognize that Bertus said "Evolution theory." And I do not agree with Rossnixon that that means "natural selection;" these days, it means "the modern synthesis." The theory of evolution (the modern synthesis) is not the same thing as evolution itself. Rossnixon is right that evolution is of no use to anyone, it is a non-teleological process. But the theory of evolution, as Knowledge Seeker observes, is indeed useful, and the idea of a section on its uses is a good one. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

One area of practical application is genetic algorithms--Nowa 22:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

evolutionary medicine, evolutionary psychology, etc apply evolutionary theory to particular practical biological problems. Natural selection doesn't have much use in itself, since it can't really be controlled, though artificial selection which also causes evolution, can. Evolution can be beneficial and it can be detrimental. Is there room for an article? Maybe, but you're going to have to try harder to get the concepts clear first. Dunc|☺ 23:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Commentary on recent vandalism

User:FeloniousMonk, thanks for fixing the following bit of vandalism by "216.239.1.4", which said, "evolution is full of holes and hoaxes that no one can deny. it has been proved wrong on numerous occasions, and yet it is still pushed. it was hitler's inspiration."

You might be amused to know that the IP appears to come from Moorhead Public School in Minnesota, so the author was quite likely a child. Not that this excuses the behavior... Alienus 19:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Better that than a teacher, I suppose. The article is on my watch list and I'm always happy to help. FeloniousMonk 21:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to guess, from content, that it was not a teacher, at least not unless standards have dropped even lower. Oh, and I followed up on a subsequent bit of vandalism, by the mysterious 71.243.236.227. Turns out it's from an ISP in Tampa, FL. Red state, Jeb state, so it's to be expected, I suppose. I really have to wonder what these people think they're accomplishing. Alienus 06:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

Alienus, That was an interesting comment about the potential viability of any life that might emerge abiogenically. Can you provide a reference or other support?--Nowa 22:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work, User:Nowa and User:Guettarda; it's always better to launch an edit war by reverting without waiting for a response. Especially fun when you revert a second time while the response is being written, as it shows that you can act faster than the speed of thought. I'm not going to waste my time with you people. If you can't be civil enough to talk before shooting, you deserve to sit here and be jumped on by idiot vandals. With friends like you, who needs enemies, so I am removing this page from my watch list. http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=002479;p=1 Alienus 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please lay off on the insults - Nowa's point was there before you restored the material. I came here first, saw the unanswered comment, and concluded that there was no conversation to participate in. In all appearances, you were the one edit warring, since you restored it without addressing his comment. I explained my position quite carefully in my edit summary. In addition, now that you have provided a "source" I was correct - this is speculation. It's also important to realise that the politics of evolution are quite different from the science, and both are secondary here because we are bound by the rules of Wikipedia. I think it's interesting speculation, but unsourced speculation is not appropriate for the article. Guettarda 07:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is really quite off-topic here anyway, this page is about Evolution. They're quite distinct theories, despite the tendency of anti-evolutionists to pretend they're the same thing. I would say that the present paragraph containing the word is out of place, and needs to be removed or rewritten. Arker 08:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Alienus, my apologies for the abrupt reversion. I didn't mean to offend, but to suggest that an assertion as significant as yours should really be backed up with references. I did look at the page you posted as a reference, but I couldn't find anything that looked like scientific support. If I missed something in it, it might be helpful to post an excerpt here on the talk page with a link to the original publication. --Nowa 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nowa, and I apologize for taking offense where none was intended. However, and this applies more to Guettarda, I do not apologize for demanding civility. Regardless of what the eventual consensus is on the inclusion of the text, we need to handle this carefully and maturely, granting people the benefit of the doubt before reacting, and saving the hostility for where it's truly merited. Reverting before receiving a response is justified in the cases of obvious vandalism, but not when a genuine effort to contribute is being made. After all, it's not as if that one disputed sentence was so horrible that it ruined the entire page. In the end, I am quite content to accept the consensus of this page's maintainers, but I do insist on my right to make my case before being judged.

I have to say that the reaction against the text I included took me by surprise. Frankly, I consider it obvious and uncontroversial that any new instance of abiogenesis would be woefully unprepared for competition that's been honed by billions of years of evolution. Just as the presence of a species in an ecological niche provides evolutionary pressure on other species to avoid this niche, once one family of organisms has been firmly established, its existence takes away opportunities for new types of life. This is neither original research nor anything outside scientific consensus. In fact, I've seen this exact point made routinely in debates with Creationists (such as in the link I included), and I know I've seen it in print, though I haven't yet found an authoritative reference online. As I see it, the text I added, being nothing more than a mundane explication of what conventional evolutionary theory predicts, stands on its own, but I'll be glad to track down further references, if that shores up dissent. Alienus 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I offended, but quite frankly I don't understand why you are upset with me for "incivility" - you re-added the material without addressing Nowa's question, so I explained my revert without being incivil. You, on the other hand, responded by calling me an "idiotic vandal" - definite violation of WP:NPA.

Nowa's edit summary: removed speculative assertion about abiogenesis. Please see talk, followed by explanation in talk.

Alienus' edit summary: Restored cut.; response to Alienus - none.

My edit summary: rv - this would be highly speculative even from an established source - without a source it is too speculative to include here; this was after I looked at the talk page and saw no response to Nowa's explanation.

I'd say I acted correctly.

As for the statement itself, it's neither uncontrovertial not is it obvious. To being with, niche theory is far from uncontrovertial and somewhat tautological. Just as the presence of a species in an ecological niche provides evolutionary pressure on other species to avoid this niche - this is not an accurate statement. To begin with, fundamental niches overlap between species. Competition and other interactions exclude species from some (large) part of that fundamental niche, but they do not "evolve away" from that niche - in fact, most tree species in North America actually grow best at the southern end of their range - they are not "evolving away" from those parts of the niche from which they have been excluded.

The heart of the matter is the statement were abiogenesis to occur today, the resulting proto-organism would be too primitive to successfully compete against the sophisticated, well-adapted organisms around it. Given what we know (and more importantly, don't know) about competition, this generalisation is unfounded. Speculation violates NPOV, unless you report speculation. In addition, given the common creationist argument that evolution is not scientific (obviously untrue, but that's doesn't stop them from using it), it makes no sense to me to include something which is obviously not scientific. Why give fodder to the next troll? Guettarda 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

1) Scroll up and you'll see that the "idiot vandals" I spoke of are 216.239.1.4 and 71.243.236.227, who defaced this page and had their idiocy quickly reverted. I bring them us as examples of the sort of people who deserve to have their changes thrown away without bothering to engage them in dialog. I fully stand behind calling these vandals idiots and I will not retract it. If you think I called you an idiot, then this is a fine example of your failure to understand what others are writing. I suggest reading more carefully and giving what you see some thought before you react. Less embarassing that way.

2) For the record, your timeline's off. Before I restored my work, I posted an explanation to the Talk page. A minute later, I posted an unrelated comment to FeloniousMonk on the Talk page and only then noticed that my abiogenesis Talk post hadn't made it up. Once I saw this, I did my best to recreate my original post to Nowa from memory, which was a pain. While I was typing it up, you went ahead and removed my work again. If you had waited a minute longer, you'd have seen my response. Of course, it's clear now that, even if you had seen my response, that wouldn't have stopped you from removing my work, so the point is moot. Fact is, you're too quick on the trigger and too dismissive of things you lack a full understanding of. I hold you accountable for this.

3) I've explained myself already so I'm not particularly interested in further discussing the merits of the added text with you. Instead, I'll let this issue sit on the back burner until I finish digging up a few more references. This way, people like you won't have any excuse to remove my work. Alienus 03:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• With your added information it is possible to read your comments differently, but without that qualification it appears that you are calling us the idiotic vandals. But you really shouldn't call anyone idiotic vandals, and you should be more clear when you write things, especially when you are angry.
• My timeine isn't off - I can't mind-read. I can only respond to what's there, and you should not fly off the handle because I did not take into account edits which never took.
• I didn't "remove your work again" - I only removed it once. Granted, I would not have left something there that should not have been there. You need to take into account that bit at the bottom of every page: If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it.
• Winning an argument is not the point of this page - it's about including factually accurate, relevant, information. I accept your assertion that people make that point, even though I am not familiar with it. But it has two problems. One is that it's a poorly supported, highly speculative assertion - I can see ways that people could come up with credible expections. Another is that it is unsourced. Having a source for the argument removes the "original research" element of it, but it still leaves it as a logically flawed argument. Guettarda 04:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing here that I can productively respond to except for the very last part. You suggest that the argument about new instances of abiogenesis being unable to compete is logically flawed. I think this would be a good time to point out the flaw. And, no, being speculative is not a flaw. Everything about abiogenesis is to some extent speculative because, as far as we know, it was a singular event in the deep past. Alienus 01:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is why there really shouldn't be any mention of abiogenesis on the page at all. The current revision is better than earlier ones, but someone could come along tommorrow and start editting and expanding that reference, and claim it must belong since there's already a start in place. Arker 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. The evolution of life from non-living replicators occured through natural selection, the same mechanism responsible for adaptative evolution among living organisms. The path from the first replicator to the variety of life today was a continuous one, without any particular moment when life unambiguously started. For this reason, while it might be fair to say that abiogenesis has its own article so we shouldn't waste too much space on it here, I don't think abiogenesis can be fairly considered so different from and unrelated to evolution that it shouldn't be mentioned here at all. Adding to this is the fact that opponents of evolution typically fail to distinguish at all between the two, so we should reference it here if only to distinguish it. Alienus 03:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

But this article isn't about answering the opponents of evolution - if it were then the alternatives would need to be treated as well. The political controvery, and the creationist movement have lots of articles. So not only does it duplicate information found elsewhere, it would also muddies the article. While I think a brief bit about the origins of life is appropriate, it doesn't make sense to answer creationists here. That's what the creation-evolution controversy article is for. Guettarda 04:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That's speculation. And it has it's place - in abiogenesis theory. Evolutionary theory, however, is something entirely different, and there's no reason to muddy the water by confusing the two. Arker 07:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arker brings up an issue I've been meaning to broach for a while (maybe I did?) - the whole "origin of life" bit really needs clarification. We should be VERY VERY explicitly putting a crowbar between "theory of evolution" and "origin of life", "abiogenesis", etc. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the other two, and the article REALLY confuses that already confusing issue. Graft 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't? Since evolution, in its strictest definition, applies only to living organisms, I must admit that abiogenesis does not (strictly speaking) qualify as evolution. However, the key mechanisms underlying evolution apply to all replicators, not just living ones, which means that things like natural selection predate abiogenesis. For this reason, the evidence points to a simple replicator as the first step towards abiogenesis. This replicator produced imperfect copies which change over time, "guided" by natural selection, until they result in something that is clearly alive. In other words, the mechanisms behind evolution not only explain how life became more varied and better adapted, but how the non-living became alive. Given this, the removal of abiogenesis from this article would be a damaging and artificial omission. Also, let me remind you that the topic of abiogenesis necessarily involves elements that will be considered speculative, so this is not sufficient excuse to exclude it. Alienus 01:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I don't know where your information comes from, which is another matter, but I'll repeat this speculation is entirely off-topic in an article on evolution. It might be appropriate on abiogenesis, if it's properly sourced. Arker 03:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. Unfortunately, you've expressed disagreement without offering explanation, so I can't further comment on the reasons for your mistake. The context here is a description of the ancestry of organisms and the first mention of abiogenesis. There is already a line offering a (speculative) reason why abiogenesis is not currently being observed. My suggestion is to add a complementary explanation.

Could your still provide a source for your assertion? -- Ec5618 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What turns out not to be the case? That you can source your assertions? As to my explanation, it's simple, and I should think goes without saying. Evolution is the process of heritable change in living populations. By definition, whatever may or may not have happened prior to the origin of the first living population is beyond the scope of Evolution, as you conceded already above. Arker 20:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, the modern synthesis (the subject of this article) is predicated on nucleic acids and their inheritance and the Central Dogma. The Central Dogma only exists AFTER abiogenesis has happened, not before. Broader definitions of evolution that encompass any general process of change don't apply. Graft 22:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Support - I think the evolution article should at least mention abiogenesis, if only to point out that it is a distinct and wholey separate theory from evolution. Too many people think evolution says anything about where the common ancestor came from. All evolution really says is descent with modification from a common ancestor. --Cyde 00:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I also support brief inclusion. A small paragraph as the one suggested is a minute percentage of the article and needed to clarify what we all understand; that abiogenesis is not evolution, as many believe. I added it to the See Also section at the very least. --JPotter 23:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

World Wide Acceptance of Evolution???

[Off-topic comment removed - this is not a debate forum; talk pages are meant for discussing ways to improve the article. - Guettarda 19:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)]

Fact and Theories

Why isn't modern synthesis the theory and evolution the factual part of the theory? Then the Scientific Theory section could have:

In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories — they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is a fact and the theory of modern synthesis is the most powerful explanation for that fact. Within the science of biology modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.

-Phil-

At first glance this looks to be very accurate and understandable. Does anyone see any problems with it? Arker 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Just link to Stephen Jay Gould's famous article on this topic and be done with it. Or maybe try for an excerpt. --Cyde 00:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the origin of the term 'theory of evolution'? I don't believe the expression occurs in Darwin's books. It seems that even Darwin thought evolution was an observed fact and was offering natural selection as the theory to explain that fact.--Pasado 17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, once again, someone who doesn't understand what "theory" means in the proper scientific context. Evolution is both an observed fact and a theory. You might want to read Stephen Jay Gould's famous essay on this topic. In short, it's called a theory because it is one, and this has nothing to do with Darwin thinking it was an "observed fact" - the people who called it that did too. --Cyde 18:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that enforcing a rigorous distinction between the two entities (evolution, the observed process, and evolution, the theory) is probably necessary to a greater degree in this article than in other articles of like nature, simply because there exist individuals with, shall we say, polemical stances, who insist upon modifying the article in order to promulgate thier own particular polemic - the existence of said individuals being all too lamentably familiar to other editors. Doutbless this article has been subject to a disproportionate degree of edit revision simply because of this. A rigorous distinction between the two entities is also necessary, simply because certain polemical individuals are, shall we say, less than rigorous in their own use of language when promulgating their views. It won't have an effect upon the trolls of course - those individuals who periodically scribble assorted pieces of rubbish all over the article in the forlorn hope that the editors will give up - but it will make life somewhat more difficult for those who adopt a quasi-academic stance. Calilasseia 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I think Pasado's right — I do not think Darwin called it the "theory of evolution," rather, natural selection was his hypothesis to explain speciation. Asking for the origin of the phrase "theory of evolution" is a legitimate question, and does not in and of itself disparage the theory of evolution. That said, I also agree with Calilasseia, that the article should be very clear about evolution (meaning, the creation of new species through natural processes) as a fact, and the modern synthesis as a theory that explains that fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody calls it the modern synthesis though. We just call it the theory of evolution. And most scientists don't call their own work theories. That is generally done by the rest of the scientific establishment, who recognize its worth. It's almost considered vain to label your own work a theory. --Cyde 20:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of people refer to the modern synthesis. However, a more common and easily understandable expression is evolutionary biology.

As a parallel: Nobody confuses digestion with the study of digestion; or confuses having a heartbeat with being a cardiologist. It's true that people often use the word "biological" to mean "living" -- as in "biological systems" meaning systems in & among living things, rather than meaning the systemry of biological study. However, I think we can expect that people will understand the distinction between evolution (the process) and evolutionary biology (the study). --FOo 20:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Calilasseia about the distinction of terms, but for a different reason. If I say, for example, 'Modern synthesis is the principal theory used in evolutionary biology to understand evolution', I should not then see the term 'evolution' used in different ways throughout the rest of the article. I think only using the term evolution in the observed process sense would increase the clarity of the article. If you mean theory, say modern synthesis. Evolution as a theory was subsumed by modern synthesis by the 1960s', so any usage of the term ‘theory of evolution’ should only be historical.--Pasado 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree the term evolution is being used ambiguously in the article - both as a fact and also as the "theory of evolution". The ambiguity starts in the first paragraph in which evolution is defined in such a way that it could also pass for a definition of "heredity" - except for the additional perspective of heredity within a population. The other difficulty is that it is defined as a "process" - as though we understood it like we understand the process of refining oil. It is the process that the much of the theory is about. Perhaps it would help if the article, after defining the fact of evolution, declared the rest of the article will be about the theory that typically goes by the same name.--JimWae 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see now that my use of the word process was in error. I should have said that by only using the term evolution in the observed fact sense we would increase the clarity of the article. Since the theory of modern synthesis defines evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next, it would be an observable fact. The process of how that happens would be explained by the theory. The usage of the term theory of evolution would still only be historical, however, because evolution as a theory was subsumed by modern synthesis by the end of the 1960s'.--Pasado 06:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the article were limited to the factual aspects of evolution, it would be considerably shorter, no? --JimWae 09:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you never learned biology. It's not too late, you know. Alienus 09:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there is nothing theoretical about it? Do you call names all who say there is theory involved? --JimWae 09:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If it were "limited" to the fact of evolution then the article would have to be huge to even begin to summarize the facts that show evolution has occurred and is occurring still. Fortunately, the article skims past that and focuses on the theory that explains these facts. Alienus 14:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to not understand the definition of theory in the scientific context. Please educate yourself. --Cyde 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyde, with six people participating in a discussion, saying "you" is not very helpful. Whom are you addressing? It is not clear to me that either Alienus or JimWae do not understand what "theory" means. However, your comment above, "And most scientists don't call their own work theories" is just silly. Scientists do all sorts of work, and know how to distinguish between hypothesis, theory, and data. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"You" refers to the one I was directly addressing. If you look at the threading in the discussion, it should become obvious. And you didn't get my point about scientists not calling their own work theories. That shows a lot of vanity. They call them "conjectures" or "hypotheses" or such and it's up to the general scientific consensus to see if it merits being called a theory. --Cyde 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyde, it is clear then that you have no idea what you are talking about. A "hypothesis" is categorically different from a "theory." This is not a question of humility or vanity, they are two different things. If a scientist is proposing a theory, she will call it a theory and not a hypothesis because she knows the difference between the two. And if she calls it a hypothesis, it is not because she is humble, it is because she is proposing a hypothesis and not a theory. At this point, I'd bet Alienus knows a lot more about science than you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as we both agree on the definition of scientific theory, there's nothing left to discuss. --Cyde 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

Move any image, but if they seem to be looking away from the page they disctract the reader also away from the page. Just some ergonomics design ;) Jclerman 22:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In my printed World Book encyclopedia, there is not a single image that is left aligned. It is printed in 2 columns & the only ones in left column take up entire column. Left aligned images in text that is read left to right changes the left margin point to which the reader must return to find the next line - making reading more difficult. Sometimes this results in

text text text text text

<<<<image>>>> text text

<<<<image>>>> text text

text text text text text

<image> text text text

<image> text text text

text text text text

This can vary depending upon screen resolution & window size. I'd prefer putting all images on right, but find it less of a problem when there are only a few left images. Two lefties in a row are especially problematic.--JimWae 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the layout looks great. I use a 760 X 1024 display.--Pasado 00:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks much better this way too, and while it may be inconsistent with the World Book encyclopedia, it's certainly 100% consistent with Wikipedia. :) If you think we shouldn't align any images to the left, then that's something to take up with image guidelines and style suggestions in general, not with a particular page that happens to have much less packed-in, stressfully clustered feel when its images are distributed around the page a bit more. And I've returned the former image of the chimp (which didn't waste so much space with a rock wall anyway, though I didn't mind it particularly) that would allow us to both avoid a series of right-aligns right no top of each other and not have the image "look away from the text" (which I think is a terribly silly problem, especially since this article is written for human readers, not chimp ones). -Silence 01:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't be different than World Book just to be different. Their image aligning guidelines make sense. What Jim Wae says about left-aligned pictures breaking up the flow of the text is true. Oppose - aligning pictures to the left. --Cyde 16:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made changes to the layout in an attempt to find a middle ground that addresses the recent image issues. The images roughly alternate between the right and left, which I hope allays concerns that the page was "too right heavy" and had a "packed-in, stressfully clustered feel". I agree with Fredrik and Jclerman that the 'thinker' chimp is a better picture here—it seems to hint at the broader philosophical implications posed by the finding that we share so much of our genetic heritage with other primates, in a way that the other image does not. I do not think Jclerman's placement of it on the right was "silly" or "cheesy"—certainly no more so than concerns that the page "breathes" poorly when the pictures are laid out in a particular way: they're both simply artistic opinions on a layout issue. Speaking of which, I understand that it is a common design practice to place profiles facing into the text—it certainly does look better with this particular image; I have therefore placed it on the right. I have removed one image—the front matter of Origin—to make way for Darwin's mug, which sits rather nicely in the history section. Can someone clean up the phylogenetic tree? I think it has compression artifact. encephalon

General comments

Greetings fellow Wikipedians. This morning, I have been reading, with great interest, about evolution, creationism, ID, etc. My POV is as an evolutionary creationist, here are some of my observations:

• I commend the editors of this page for adding the "Impact of theory" section. It greatly improves this articles NPOV.
• This article still fails to explain evolution to (as used earlier) "the ignorant," which I guarantee, includes me. The article is replete with "geek speak," that is words that are unique to this discipline. If this article is to become an effort at informing the rest of us, then its language should be written to us, and not to your peers. Here are a couple of examples:
  • "In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles..." Granted there are external links to other pages, but the sentences cannot be parsed by the uninitiated.
  • "The emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis (around 3 billion years ago) and the subsequent emergence of an oxygen-rich, non-reducing atmosphere can be traced through the formation of banded iron deposits, and later red beds of iron oxides."
  • The issue gets even worse when one reads other articles on evolution, especially Big Bang.
• Reading the talk pages (included those archived) indicates a desire from the readers to know the weaknesses (including underlying assumptions) of evolution. Responses to those readers indicates that those weaknesses are now included on the pages, and rightly so, however, those weaknesses are hard to find. Why not put them right up front for the reader to find, and then explain why scientists continue to trust these ideas? I realize that the scientific evidence greatly supports evolution, however, this page relegates defense of its weaknesses to other pages.

Anyway, my two cents...

Steven McCrary 17:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

---

First of all, evolution is a highly scientific discipline, and dumbing it down to an entirely colloquial level would rob it of much of its content. A lot of science is, quite simply, counter-intuitive and hard to understand. That's not the scientists' fault; that's just how things are. You can't expect to understand everything without putting in some effort on your end. Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles..." That's not too hard to understand, presumably you know what frequency is, so you just have to look up what allele means and you'll understand.

You are making the huge mistake of assuming that the Big Bang has anything to do with the theory of evolution. They're actually in two entirely different fields of study, biology and astrophysics. Evolution talks about descent with modification from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis deals with the genesis of the first life from non-living materials and Big Bang Theory deals with the start of the universe. All three are separate disciplines.

In the scientific world that are very few weaknesses in the theory of evolution, and those that do exist are around the issues of, say, whether species X is a descendent from Y or Z. There are no real doubts about the validity of evolution as a whole. This article accurately reflects that scientific consensus. You may be getting a false conception of the strengths and merits of evolution from various wingnut groups.

--Cyde 22:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyde, you make some good points, but nonetheless, I would agree that the article does suffer from POV since it fails to recognize that there are still important questions about the origin of the species that current researchers are still trying to answer. Perhaps most important of these is How do entities with complex organizational structure and function arise and develop? I think the article as a whole would be improved if it gave these unanswered questions more prominence and acknowledged that unanswered questions are the hallmark of scientific theories. --Nowa 01:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nowa, you're kind of misrepresenting that link you used there. It's not posing that question as, "How does this happen, because we don't know," but rather, in the same sense as a physics professor saying to the class, "Now, how do electric fields affect charged particles?" I don't understand your POV objections. Do you really want gravity talking about alternative "theories" such as intelligent falling? Should chemistry discuss alchemy as an alternative? In the scientific world, there simply is no real opposition to evolution. If you think the POV is wrong, please at least suggest an alternative theory to evolution. I mean, we could offer Lamarckism as an alternative, but that's been thoroughly disproven. --Cyde 04:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyde, I like your analogy of "How do electric fields affect charged particles?" At the end of the 18th century, physicists largely felt that Maxwell's equations completely accounted for all electromagnetic phenomina. Being good physicists, however, they continued to probe the limits of the theory in hopes of finding flaws in it. When you find a flaw in a theory it opens the door to a new, more comprehensive theory (and a chance to become a famous physicist!). The Michelson-Morley experiments demonstrated such a flaw, the speed of light was found to be independent of the motion of the ether. Maxwell's equations could not account for that. This, along with other experimental observations, led to the development of the Special Theory of Relativity. Similarly, Young's double-slit experiments paved the way for the development of Quantum Mechanics. I think that if Wikipedia had been around in the late 1800s, an article that stated "No serious physicist disagrees with Maxwell's Equations" would suffer from a subtle but important POV problem. Do you agree? --Nowa 12:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your description of the history of E&M is flatly wrong. For one thing, Maxwell's equations contradict Newton's laws of motion, which at the time had 3 centuries of empirical evidence to back them up. So until relativity came along 30 years later (and demonlished Newton once and for all), most physicists were in a quadry, and prone to accept Newton's laws over Maxwell's laws.

Also, in point of fact, Maxwell's equations make *no* predictions about the media of light at all; they merely state that it is possible for a space changing electric field generates a time-changing magnetic field, and vice versa. Saying they do not account for ether (or the lack of it) is a rather vacuus statement - they do not address the subject of media at all. Raul654 12:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Raul, Thank you for your observations. I double checked my source, (Schwartz, Principles of Electrodynamics) and found the following disclaimer in a footnote - "The author takes no responsibility for the correctness of the historical exposition. Not having studied the history, he has imagined what it must have been like and arranged it to suit." (p 107). So please accept my apology and consider my exposition above a metaphor to make a point about POV.--Nowa 18:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to the point of subtle POV, a number of Wikipedia articles on the sciences are very forthcoming about the current scientific controversies in their respective fields. The article on quantum chromodynamics, for example, has a special box set aside describing current unsolved problems in the field. The article on the big bang states right in the summary that ‘’’ Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before (the Big Bang)…’’’. That’s not to say the current article doesn’t acknowledge controversies in the field of Evolution, (e.g. punctuated equilibrium, early history of life), but I believe that it would be substantially strengthened if it was more forthcoming about some of the more important unsolved problems in the field that are currently under scientific investigation (e.g. lack of a widely accepted explanation for the origination of fundamental body forms)--Nowa 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyde, thanks for the response; your points are well made and well taken. My concerns follow:

1. Wow, please forgive my "huge" mistake. If my mistake (regarding association of evolution with the Big Bang theory) is huge (as you say) then imagine how many other readers of this article are making the same mistake. Where in Wikipedia are those distinctions made, again for the uninitiated? Ask my 14-year old son if the Big Bang theory is part of evolution, and he says "yes." Does that mean that his teacher has made a huge mistake as well? What about the educators of that teacher. Seems to me that this article, is missing an opportunity to make these distinctions. I am sure that I am not the only one making this "huge" mistake. Cyde, I trust that "huge" is used, here, as mere hyperbole. I would characterize my behavior to be a common, yet important lack of distinction.
2. I am not convinced, yet, of the arguments made regarding the parsing of the article. Sure, some new vocabulary may need to be parsed, but good prose is written at the level of the reader. Does this article ignore that idea? It appears so from this reader's perspective.
3. Thanks to Nowa for his input here; I agree with and support that input.

Steven McCrary 03:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The Big Bang theory is certainly no part of evolutionary biology -- it isn't even part of biology; it's part of cosmology or possibly astrophysics. Evolution also long predates the Big Bang theory. Conflating evolution with the Big Bang, simply because many people believe in both, would be a little bit like conflating Baptist theology with American football -- it's true that they're both well-represented in the American South, and that some football players are Baptists ... but they don't have too much else in common. :) --FOo 04:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, my ignorance is obvious, but is the disambiguation link at the top of the page sufficient to make this distinction just as obvious? Again, to what audience is this page written, to other biological evolutionists, astrophysicists, or cosmologists, or to the unitiated, or maybe to Baptist theologians ;-) ? Steven McCrary 04:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Steven: It doesn't particularly matter what you and your son think, evolution is biology and the Big Bang is astronomy/astrophysics. If you think the theory of evolution includes the Big Bang then you really need to read up on evolutionary biology. And I thought it was quite clear in the article exactly what evolution is. It talks about evolution as a change in allele frequencies over time due to natural selection working on differential fitness factors. In a nutshell, that's all it is. It doesn't say anything about where the first living thing came from and it sure as hell doesn't say anything about where the universe came from!!

And you can't define evolution without using such words as "allele". Well, you could, but it'd be a really shitty definition and it wouldn't be in the best interests of the reader. Sometimes you just have to resign yourself to learning about related topics if you want to understand something as complex as evolution. Allele is a single link away, and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes on that page to grasp what an allele is, so I don't quite understand your definition. --Cyde 04:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking the Big Bang is a part of evolutionary theory? Nah, that's not a huge mistake. "Huge mistake" would be an understatement. You might just as well say that a squid is a type of mineral, or that physics is a field in archaeology, or that Albert Einstein is famous for building a magical marrionette named Pinocchio. It is truly impossible to conflate these two concepts with even the most basic, rudimentary understanding of what they mean. And by "rudimentary", I mean a one-line, excessively simple definition that even a child could understand. Big Bang = "Explosion that the universe came out of." Evolution = "Living things changing over time to eventually become new species." There. If the evolution and Big Bang articles don't make the distinction painfully clear within 30 seconds of beginning to read the articles, then the articles need to be changed.

It is an article's job to be as clear and user-friendly as possible, being as accessible to a completely uninformed populace as possible. This means not using overly long or complex words when simpler ones would convey the meaning just as well, explaining definitions of important and relatively out-of-the-mainstream terminology, and explaining the most basic elements of both the process and the theory as clearly as possible. It is not an article's job to assume that readers have a specific misconception that needs to be directly addressed in the article (rather than indirectly addressed: the very lack of any mentioning of the Big Bang in this article, and the clear explanations of what evolution is, are all that's needed to refute this misconception), unless it can be definitively shown that this is indeed a rampant and very popular mistake—support you assertion that most people think the Big Bang is a part of evolutionary theory with polls or testimony or articles, something tangible. Otherwise, best to assume that anyone with such a misconception on Wikipedia will resolve it within a minute or two of beginning to research it: the assumption that the person can read. -Silence 04:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. McCrary, perhaps if you explain the association you perceive between evolution and the Big Bang. I think most of us are perplexed because we see little or no connection between them, other than they are both scientific theories. The Big Bang refers to the event 13.7 billion years ago responsible for the emergence of the universe, and evolution refers to the progression of life on Earth over the past 4 or so billion years. The Big Bang ultimately resulted in the formation of stars, planetary systems, and Earth; do you see a stronger connection than both being theories that are part of the history of the Universe? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, thanks for the considerate response, I would be happy to try to clear it up, if I can. I do see that these two theories as linked, maybe only in my mind. But, there is an earlier comment, in Archive_2 about this disambiguation, but looking back, that concern was marginalized as purely "American" and therefore not worth consideration. If no one else shares my concerns, fine, do not clear it up, leave the disambiguation as it is now (the Americans can continue to wallow in their ignorance). I do understand the difference, now, but not by reading the articles; again maybe it is just me, that is for your editors to decide. I cannot provide a statistically significant study of the world population's understanding of the term "evolution," so take or leave my concerns, but please do not feed the trolls. (I assume neither Silence nor Cyde are trolling, so I pass by their defensive and aggressive comments.) Steven McCrary 05:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, you asked me how these two theories are linked in my mind, well (and you will not like this) it is from Christian doctrine. The Genesis story of the Bible links the origin of the cosmos and the origin of species in one account, so they remain so in my mind, until today. My POV aside, the term evolution is commonly misunderstood in the US, please see Archive_2. Thanks for reading, Steven McCrary 05:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully you do realize that one cannot hope to begin learn science from the Bible. It's best to keep the Bible in one part of your brain and science in the other. I'm not blaming you for conflating the Big Bang and evolution, though ... I saw Kent Hovind (a famous creationist) perform last week and he was doing it too, and his seminars and videos and books reach thousands of people weekly. And no, of course I'm not trolling. For your own edification you may want to read up a bit further on evolution. Here are two nice links for you:

• An index to common creationist claims
• Many occurrences of "macroevolution"
• Hominid evolution

--Cyde 07:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

OK, well, it's true that the Genesis account includes a (very brief!) tale of the origin of both the world (which could be understood as meaning the universe, but isn't always) and of various sorts of organisms. However, that isn't so of all religions' creation accounts. For instance, the Asatru creation account has the world(s) being constructed out of the corpse of a giant, and only sometime later the first humans being created. We can't easily infer from a particular mythos (the term being used here broadly) to the way that modern scientific disciplines work: astronomy is no more subservient to biology (as the Genesis account might suggest) than it is to the physiology of giants (as the Asatru account might suggest).

Or, put another way, traditional tales of all sorts are usually of very little relevance to science. Bats are classed with the birds in Leviticus, but we now know that bats are mammals and birds are not. The Ancient Greeks believed that people thought and felt emotions with their hearts, and that the brain was a cooling system for the blood; we now know otherwise. The words for "personality" or "soul" in classical languages (Greek psyche, Latin spiritus, Sanskrit atman) is also the word for "breath", because people observed that dead people stop breathing -- but we now know that the personality is a brain function and that breath merely provides oxygen, not soul. There are some cases where traditional sources get it right (or sufficiently close to right); but they're rare enough that they're pointedly remarkable. --FOo 06:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that there are people who demand that their mythology be taken as fact. A typical case are Christian fundamentalists, who believe in Biblical literalism, down to a week-long creation. I can editorialize about why they consider this important, but the simple fact is that they do. Unfortunately for them, science happens to have come to different conclusions about our origins, leading to an insurmountable social conflict. Alienus 07:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that. :) I was just trying to state the pro-science side in as agreeable a fashion as possible. Religious believers sometimes get the impression that science is anti-religion, or that people who do or teach science somehow do so out of hatred for religion. But that's just not the case. --FOo 07:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured you knew that. My goal was to redirect your attention to what I thought was the key issue, not attempt to educate you. However, religious believers 'are' right in their impression that science is anti-religion. No, it's not that science necessarily contradicts religion, or that it is based on (or demonstrates) a hatred of religion. Rather, science has, however inadvertantly, sucked the mojo out of religion. It has made the religious view of the world less relevant by leaving less and less for religion to explain. To put it bluntly, God is being squeezed dry by the shrinking gap that was once His palace. The world is becoming more secular, and fundamentalism is a counter-reaction against this fact. We're in the middle of a culture war launched as a last-ditch effort to prevent the inevitable. It might work, too, if only Pyrrhically. Alienus 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the considered responses. The links given by Cyde are particularly informative; thanks. Regarding my differentiation between faith and science, well that is a personal matter, as is yours, and we all have to struggle with it in our own way. I do not pretend to request that any particular faith be more or less represented here; that has never been my intention. It only came up because of a request to clarify the source of my confusion about evolution versus Big Bang.

So, am I to assume that the issues of disambiguation of the word "evolution" is settled; since most of the problem is unique to Americans (Archive_2), and therefore considered marginal?

If this is the case, then I will only make one more comment: On several Wikipedia Talk pages, I have read comments from non-Americans that the pages are often US-centric. And so, we go to great pains to "Internationalize" the pages to include other perspectives. My point here is that Wikipedians cannot have it both ways, i.e., to write prose that addresses none of the unique perspectives of USAmericans. If the pages are to be International, then American perspectives and American readers have to be addressed. As do the readers of all continents, including the Asatru, and others. Again, the articles should be written to our readers, not to our peers.

Sincerely, Steven McCrary 16:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You are making an incorrect assumption: Wikipedia articles are not necessarily directed towards a general audience. This is by necessity, since some topics are by nature idiosyncratic and require specialized knowledge to grasp even the basic notion of what the article describes. E.g., the article on the zeta distribution cannot possibly be written for a layman without recapitulating entire other articles (like probability distribution). It's up to the authors of the article to judge the level of knowledge they feel it is appropriate to write to.

In the case of this article, which deals with a relatively complex theory in the field of biology, it is simply essential that certain fundamentals be understood, and given the incredible breadth of the topics covered, a certain willingness to learn must be assumed. The article is already ridiculously long; if we provided a basic grounding in genetics, geology, etc., as well, it would become absurd.

Furthermore, it remains mysterious to me why you should find this article confounding. It states clearly the subject that it covers at the very top of the page. I cannot possibly believe that you consider the Big Bang to fall within the purview of "life sciences", and the disambiguation link is clearly indicated, if you wish to clarify your confusions.

Wikipedia is a tool for self-education, not a tutor. It bears no responsibility to spoon-feed those who are not willing to make the minimal effort. In this case, I think the effort really is quite minimal. Graft 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Origination of Organismal Form

User:Fastfission has respectfully suggested that the following description of experimental research on the spontaneous emergence organismal form is not appropriate for inclusion in the "History Section". Can anyone suggest a more appropriate place?--Nowa 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A current (2005) area of experimental investigation of evolutionary mechanisms is the exploration of the influence of changes in environmental factors, such as temperature, salinity, oxygen, etc., on the spontaneous emergence of complex organismal forms. It is hypothesized, for example, that the rapid emergence of basic metazoan body plans in the Cambrian Explosion was due in part to changes in the environment which led to changes in differential cell adhesion which in turn led to spontaneous emergence of metazoan body forms. The metazoan body forms were later “locked in” through natural selection. Developmental biologists Stuart Newman and Gerd B. Müller have summarized more recent work on the in the book, Origination of Organismal Form.

Never mind. I added something like this to the larger article on history of evolutionary thought. It falls under the general heading of neostructuralism. There is no need to have it redundantly posted here. --Nowa 00:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Impacts of theory"

I completely re-wrote and re-titled the "Impacts of theory" section. I think it is germane to include a note that the theory has been socially and religiously very controversial, but as such it should be given a title of that nature (i.e. "Objections" or "Controversy" or whatever), and should be fairly broad, linking to other articles for details. I assume that this will be a somewhat controversial section, and my changes may not be enjoyed by all camps involved, but hopefully we can make this a little better than it was before. --Fastfission 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD

I have nominated Unguided evolution for deletion due to it being a WP:FORK of this page. Please add your comments. Joshuaschroeder 05:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated Evolutionary materialism for deletion as well. Please add comments. --Joshuaschroeder 18:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)