Talk:Evolutionary progress/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Copyright

Regarding http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0505.html?m%3D1 - I am the author. --Pdturney 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote this page from scratch, so there is no longer any overlap with my previous publication on this topic. See Talk:Evolutionary progress/Temp --Pdturney 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the page has been rewritten from scratch, the content does not constitute original research. The content only summarizes information from reliable published sources. --Pdturney 14:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Sugesting that this article and Largest-Scale Trends in Evolution be merged into Evolution is like suggesting that jump shot (basketball) be merged into sport. The notion of evolution as progress has undergone important changes over time. Many of these are still firmly entrenched in the mind of the public, and has led to almost a campaign by scientists to try and correct the perception that evolution is advancing to some sort of goal and make it clear that evolution is basically just about change. Largest-Scale Trends in Evolution adds an interesting dimension to that and is a worthy addition to wikipedia. I think it's one aspect of the discussion and the idea is in its infancy. As such it probably belongs here for now. Evolutionary progress needs to be expanded to go into detail about the various historical concepts of evolution as progress. --Aranae 10:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed merger of this article into Evolution, I agree with your reasons against the merger.
Regarding the proposed merger of Largest-Scale Trends in Evolution into Evolutionary progress, I think it is better to keep them distinct, because Evolutionary progress has two aspects, directional change and improvement according to some standard. Directional change is a scientific topic, but improvement is a matter of subjective opinion. On the other hand, Largest-Scale Trends in Evolution focuses on the purely scientific question of directional change. --Pdturney 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of expanding this page into a history of concepts of evolution as progress. --Pdturney 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor article

The article here is generally very poor; it is badly sourced, contains original research and so on.

It is generally accepted that there is no progression in evolution, though over time there has been increase in complexity, since we have to start off with the simplest self-replicating molecule. But orthogenesis is definitely out. Yet the orthogenesis article is not even linked (in fact it is probably the best target for a merge).

It also contains nonsense/OR such as "whether a change is an improvement is a moral judgement, not a scientific question", wtf? This is very confused. Science says nothing about morality and morality says nothing about science, though moral judgements can be based upon scientific understanding. — Dunc|☺ 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some more references. Where exactly is the original research?
It is not generally accepted that there is no progress in evolution. See Ruse (1997) and Gould (1997). The question is controversial, even among scientists. The topic of progress in evolution is much broader than orthogenesis, which is only one example of progressive thinking in evolution. If you wish to add some discussion of orthogenesis, you are welcome.
I removed the comment about morality. I agree it was not clear. I hope it's better now. --Pdturney 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
As you mentioned at the top of this page, this essay is a rewrite of an article written by you and published elsewhere. As it is a rewrite of your original work - it falls under Wikipedia's original research policy. Please read Wikipedia:No original research carefully. Vsmith 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The content "has been rewritten from scratch". The policy says: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." I believe sources have been cited properly. Please point to specific claims that you believe require citation. --Pdturney 14:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)