Talk:Evolutionary medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolutionary medicine article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub	This page has been rated as stub-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

To-do:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents 1 Merge proposal 2 Neutral Point of View 3 Bad-faith AfD nomination 4 Adaptationist only?

[edit] Merge proposal

Why not put parts of this page on the evolution page, I don't think it merits itself as a 'field' of study Evoluu

As on the Moalem page this does not even appear to be a "field" of study. I think that this page should be marked for delete Evoluu 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some legitimacy to the term: 7,540 Google hits for "darwinian medicine", 5,860 for "evolutionary medicine". Not so sure about the "discords" stuff, which does not appear to be a technical term in this theory. -- Anon.

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Evolution is not yet universally recognized. I think that we should be careful by suggesting the term "theory of evolution" at least in the opening paragraph.

The notability of Moalem is being challenged elsewhere in Wikipedia. There seems to be evidence of notability as a published author, but to say that he is a leader in any field is not yet established. As to that, there is no documentation referenced from this article which demonstrates notability for any of the researchers mentioned.

Hopefully this is a matter of documentation rather than lack of accuracy.

--Kevin Murray 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And there are still people that claim the world is flat. That doesn't mean Wikipedia must be filled with hedges and doubts every time the shape of the Earth gets mentioned. NPOV does not require that statements lacking universal recognition be hedged with weasel words. MayerG 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad-faith AfD nomination

For the record, I removed the incomplete, bad-faith AfD nomination by User:Evoluu, a SPA imposter spoofing User:Evolu. SWAdair | Talk 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptationist only?

I don't think it's correct to say that Darwinian medicine is an application of the adaptationist prgram. Equally important in Darwinian medicine is a recognition of the historicity of evolution, and how historical paths of evolution constrain adaptation to current conditions. For example, much of what goes wrong with people's backs has to with the fact that an originally horizontal vertebral column braced at two ends has been shifted into a vertical position supported off-center at the bottom only. Although George Williams first became known for his work on adaptation, he has recently written about these historical constraints (e.g. in The Pony Fish's Glow).MayerG 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)