Talk:History of evolutionary thought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article History of evolutionary thought has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Going to go for it

I think it is ready. Unless someone feels otherwise I am going to nominate it for GA in the next couple of days.Rusty Cashman 09:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Draft will evolve as I finish copy-editing the article. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose)
  • "He thought that members of the same Linnean genus (in terms of modern scientific classification the family) had all been derived through changes driven by the environment from a common ancestor, which had arisen through spontaneous generation." - this sentence is unclear, perhaps split into two shorter sentences.
Okay, maybe that sentence was a just little clumsy :) I took a stab at fixing it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
b (MoS)
OK

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Yes.

3. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects):

  • Doesn't mention Ernest Mayr's species concept. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. I think I have addressed it now. I think I will also rectify the same problem in modern evolutionary synthesis Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

b (focused):

Yes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Yes.

5. It is stable.

Yes.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes

7. Overall:

Pass Tim Vickers (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Symbiogenesis

Since I've expanded the treatment of symbiosis in the horizontal gene transfer section I don't think this section is notable enough to remain. Compared to the other things we are discussing in the modern developments section this is really very obscure. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan Sapp's "symbiome" concept fits here, but in a different way than Margulis' proposals. A separate section could cover the various flavors of the role of symbiosis in evolution, including discussion of Wolbachia etc. JTBurman (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symbiogenesis

Main article: Symbiogenesis

Another extension to the standard modern synthesis, advocated by Lynn Margulis, is symbiogenesis. Symbiogenesis argues that acquisition and accumulation of random mutations or genetic drift are not sufficient to explain how new inherited variations occur in evolution. This theory states that species arise from the merger of independent organisms through symbiosis. Symbiogenesis emphasizes the impact of co-operation rather than Darwinian competition. This commonly occurs in multigenomic organisms throughout nature.

[edit] Handicap principle

Doesn't Zahavi's Handicap principle have a place here? Also the ideas of co-evolution and the Red Queen? Shyamal (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the handicap principle might be a little too much detail for this article, but I thinky that you are right that there should be a mention of evolutionary arms races and probably of the Red Queen hypothesis for the origin of sexual reproduction. I wooud think the logical place for it would be in the section on the gene centered view of evolution, which could use a little expansion. If no one beats me to it, I will adress it in the next couple of days. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I took a stab at adressing these concerns. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for FA?

I kind of dread the prospect, but I am beginning to think that this article might be ready for an FA nomination. Is there anything that anyone thinks needs to get done to the article prior to putting it up for FA? Rusty Cashman 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucretius section could be more specific; his ideas especially pertinent to heredity:
"For if each organism had not its own genetic bodies, how could we with certainty assign each to its mother?" [transl. of I, 167-8]
"For nothing is born in the body in order that we may be able to use it, but rather, having been born, it begets a use." [IV. 834-5]
"It can happen that children resemble their grandparents, [or] even more distant progenitors; for this reason parents often have concealed in their bodies many primordia, mixed in different ways, which they derive from the stock, and hand down from generation to generation". [IV, 1218-22].
The translation is that of Cyril Darlington in Darwin's place in history, Blackwell, Oxford 1959, p85-5. I feel the phrase 'for this reason' does not quite convey the sense of Lucretius' thought; I would have used a phrase like 'the reason is that' or even 'the explanation is'. Anyway, there it is, perhaps the first progenitor of hard heredity! (I've got a few more, but small, points, for which see below). Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've had the temerity to offer a brief para on Lucretius' ideas on heredity in the main page, but haven't quite got the reference working properly. You know I'm hopeless at this system, but anyway offer the quote for its specificity. When I get the chance, I will check other translations of L. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
And true to form, I find in Leonard's translation (project Gutenberg) this rendering in Book I, Substance is eternal:
"Indeed, and were there not
For each its procreant atoms, could things have
Each its unalterable mother [t]old?"
But, since produced from fixed seeds are all,
Each birth goes forth upon the shores of light
From its own stuff, from its own primal bodies."
I think this is consistent, even convincing. And it helps to make my point that translations are themselves problematical. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
other comments:
  • Intro, para 3: 'natural selection was not widely accepted until the early 20th century' actually not widely accepted until after the new ev syn had started to have a real effect, after WWII. Arthur Cain, for example, was quite clear about the state of play early in his career (see 'Cain reminisces about pre-war Oxford').
You are correct. I have fixed it. Even Ernst Mayr and Bernhard Rensch were neo-Larmarckians until the late 1920s.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Taoism: I don't know how Needham's view could possibly be supported, and I see no discussion of it on WP's extensive Taoism article. No specific references or quotations, either.
I don't really see a problem here. The source mentioned by Needham is Chuang Tzu. The Wikipedeia article on Zhuangzi (which is an alternate English translation for Chuang Tzu) has a subsection on evolution which says:
In Chapter 18, Zhuangzi also mentions life forms have an innate ability or power (机) to transform and adapt to their surroundings. While his ideas don't give any solid proof or mechanism of change such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin, his idea about the transformation of life from simple to more complex forms is along the same line of thought. Zhuangzi further mentioned that humans are also subject to this process as humans are a part of nature.
The source cited by the Wikipedia article is a translation (by Burton Watson) that is independant of Needham. This seems to provide independant confirmation for what I would already consider to be a reliable source. Looking at all of this did lead me to catch an error in the refernece sections. The reference to the abridged Needham should have been to volume 1 not volume 5.Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting, at least I can read Chang Tzu again. I hadn't noticed anything relevant to evolution. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ditto Al-Jahiz: if there really is something approaching nat sel (which I doubt), I'd want to see excerpt, translation and reference. In the absence of that you might use the formula 'said to be' or 'said by some' so evading the trap of being too definite about a dodgy and controversial claim.
Actually the more I research this one the better I feel about the text the way it is. The sources cited by this (and by Al-Jahiz) really do support what is said. I was able to turn up a fair amount on this subject on the internet. Most of it traces back to just a couple of sources. One is a statement by the Muslim paleontologist named Gary Dargan who paraphrases Al-Jahiz as follows: "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring." Another is this site [1]. However, I was able to find a couple of papers with Google scholar, and a couple of books with Google books that talk about Al-Jahiz's ideas on evolution. At this point I think I would need to see something that clearly contradicts this material before I would treat the assertion as 'dodgy'.Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be right; but I've looked at your Salaam ref, and the article depends upon the author's account of Al-Jahiz being accurate. You know what we have for classical Latin and Greek are side-by-side translations in several different editions, plus extensive commentary. Even with this help it is still difficult, and sometimes impossible, to be sure that a translation is a fair representation of what was said in the original. Interpretation is always a problem. Considerations like this still make me wary of accepting the word of any commentator who might have a vested interest in promoting his subject. But I have always been something of a skeptic, and you have certainly produced references. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I should have added that the paraphrase by Dargan is obviously suspect in its use of modern terminology. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ditto Ibn al-Haytham: where's the impact, exactly? 'said by some', I think!
  • You mention Liebniz and Kant, but omit Descartes. Note Darlington (op cit) p94 'Descartes on the idea of evolution', an excerpt from D's Principiarum Philosophiae (3, 45: 1644) that makes it quite clear he didn't believe in Genesis, all under the cover of a sentence starting 'I am far from wishing that everything I write should be believed.' Clever man, Descartes.
I added an allusion to Descartes and the rise of the mechanical philosophy. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The men who took up the challenge of Lamark were two physicians William Charles Wells (which you mention) and James Cowles Prichard, and a surgeon, William Lawrence "All three men denied soft inheritance" (Darlington). Prichard and Lawrence could and should be mentioned briefly, I think.
  • Also I note the absence of Thomas Malthus. Everyone was influenced by him.
Malthus was mentioned in the section on natural selection, but I have expanded and clarified the discussion of his contribution a little. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Overall, after adjustments, I'd be happy to see this article as FA. Congratulations!
Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Indian thought - the statement is not the usual Hinduism-evolution connection that most people make (which is after the fact comparison of the idea of Avatars) and the website source seem not to meet WP:RS - and it would be very much better to find either a scholarly published reference on the subject, or removal of the section. Also you may be interested in some images such as these Image:BonnetChain.jpg‎, Image:SwainsonQuinarian.jpg or they could be classified into the commons link.‎ Great work. Shyamal (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have deleted the section and the reference to it in the lead. To me the problem is not so much the qaulity of the source but rather that it seems to me that the concepts of spiritual evolution in Hinduism as described in the source and in every other source I have been able to find has little to do with the concept of biological evolution that is the topic of this article.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This website http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/prani/animals.htm reprints an article from the Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society that contains the following statement: "According to Brihaddraoyaka Upanishad, Virdjan got bored of solitude and adopted binary division like an ameba and became two individuals, one of them acting like male and other the female. As the time passed by, these individuals assumed different animal forms such. as ants, cattle, donkey, goats and pigs. Thus, the whole world was populated by evolving one group of animals into another." The problem is, I have not been able to confirm this passage in any of the online translations of the Brihadaranyaka [more usual spelling] Upanishad. Any Sanskrit readers out there who may be able to help? StN (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

Hi folx, I stumbled onto this article some way or another, and noticing the FA talk, I have to suggest that the prose in it isn't nearly what it could be. I've done a few copy-edits, but there's lots more I'd like to do. First, tho, I'll see if anybody complains about the first two paragraphs (which I've hacked up :). Mostly, I'm going for better readability in slightly younger audiences, but hopefully w/o dumbing anything down. Just better flow, etc. Comments? Eaglizard (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please continue, as the FAC comments have shown, copyediting is much needed.Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, I will. :) Please make sure to dbl-check my work, I am less than a layman in this field. In particular, note that a reference named "Singer_SHB" was moved (or rather, the sentences before it were shuffled) in the paragraph beginning "These works contain..." in the section History of evolutionary thought#Aristotle and the Ladder of Life; please make sure it still pertains correctly.Eaglizard (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood. There is always a danger with vigorous copyediting of inadvertently altering the meaning of the original text. We just have to watch out for it.Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ladder of Life

Question: Where does the term "Ladder of Life" come from, anyways? I dont think I'd ever heard it, and it's not mentioned in Great chain of being either. Is it really the proper term to use in this article, or should we change it to "chain of being", with "ladder of life" maybe being listed as an alternative? I flunked Latin, so I dunno if scala = ladder, but its a reasonable guess. Still, if we have an article on the "chain" then that is (presumably) the more common form, right? Or should the "chain of being" article be retitled "ladder of life"? Eaglizard (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the cited source [[2]]. I don't know if it is the best possible translation but I would obviously prefer to stick with the form used by the source. It is useful NOT to use the term "great chain of being" for Aristotle's ideas because it is used for the larger medieval concept which may have derived from Aristotle's idea but which was not the same thing. Aristotle used his ladder of life as a scientific classification system for living things. The Christian theologians expanded it into the great chain of being a much larger metaphysical concept. I think (and so have others such as the author of the cited source) that it is best to use two different terms for the ideas even if the same Latin phrase (scala naturae) was often used for both.Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question: I removed the line noting that the chain o' being had "also formed a part of the argument from design presented by natural theology". Is anybody particularly bothered by that? It's not an article on said chain, so that detail seemed somewhat extraneous. Eaglizard (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored it. Platonic essentialism, the great chain of being, and natural theology form the intellectual heritage against (literally against) which the early transmutational ideas developed as such it is useful to allude to all of them in this article. The great chain is discussed in a little more detail because it was also part of some of the early evolutionary ideas. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

One more and I'm done for the night: The section on Islamic thought mentions that Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book about these things, but I could find no mention of it in his article there. Anybody know the title, at least? Also, the claim that these works "appear to have had an impact on Western science" is a bit dicey - it sure needs a citation. I'm not saying it's wrong, understand, but it's definitely on the extraordinary side, I'd say. I've not bothered with the fact nag-tag, b/c I hate those things. Can somebody cite this, or must we remove it? Oh, and I deleted the subheadings b/c the small paragraphs they headed were not sufficiently detailed to warrant them. Imho, ofc. :) Eaglizard (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been other comments about al-Hytham and the assertion. I am doing some research to see if the claims are justified. If I can't come up with a source I will delete the comments. If the original editor who added that text has a source to cite It would be helpful if he/she would provide it. I agree with you about the sub headings in the Islamic thought section. Be warned though that I have deleted them myself at least once before only to have them reappear :)Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC failure

Well it looks like the FAC has been delisted. However, I just want to thank all the other editors and reviewers who have improved the article during this process, and encourage them to continue. I especially want to encourage Eaglizard to continue his/her copyediting efforts. I will continue to work on addressing several of the comments. I am still hopeful that we are not that far away from FA quality with this article, and I hope that I or some other editor will try the FAC process again with this article in the not too distant future.Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I'm sorry I didn't do more to help, this rather fell off my radar when I put NAD+ up as a FAC. Once you are ready for another try drop me a note and I'll give the article a full copy-edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I thought we were still busy. Well, I like it, and no doubt it will have its day in due course. I'll still try & pin down the Chang Tzu. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article begin with Plato, the one Greek thinker who made absolutely no contribution to evolutionary thought? As other wikipedia articles make clear, other thinkers such Anaximander and Empedocles propounded evolutionary ideas (and Empedocles propounded the first statement of natural selection, so far as I know). I mean I don't have a problem with it, it just seems a bit...odd. User:BScotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.205.114 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry as well, that I didn't help out with this. I still plan on giving it some attention when I can, I've just been putting little time into Wikipedia lately for various reason. Hopefully it will be in good shape for resubmission soon.--ragesoss (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Also sorry, had hoped to help out here but kept getting distracted by other panics. Can't promise anything in the short term, but it's on my watchlist. Glad to see progress being made, anyway. .. dave souza, talk 09:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Plato, Aristotle

Well. I've looked at Empedocles: Fragments, Book II and I can't see anything resembling natural selection. To repeat: translation and interpretation of ancient languages are deeply problematical, and there is always a tendency to over-interpret. If anyone thinks they know better, please give chapter & verse of the passage and I'll look at it carefully.
Anaxagoras, no case at all as far as I can see.
Plato: interesting because a) his critiques of earlier philosophers, b) because of the use and misuse made of his ideas by later scholars, and c) universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest minds of the ancient world, so often consulted. No scientist, though. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary to cover Plato because the concept of essentialism was so important. Without discussing it you can't understand the intellectual context the early transmutationist ideas developed against. I also agree it is hard to fairly treat the early Greek philosophers in this article. Several of them (especially the Atomists expressed ideas about non supernatural processes involved in the formation of the world and the material objects in it, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of solid evidence of them explicitly extending the concept to biology. Some of them probably did but so little of their actual writing has survived...Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert but a quick websearch finds this from Empedocles: (Those animals) perished immediately, for they were not fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements which were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive today.

http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section12.html (Of course this may well be an 'imaginative' translation, so someone who actually speaks ancient Greek should probably comment on this).

I don't think anyone claims that Anaxogoras prefigured natural selection, only evolutionism.

Incidentally I am only quoting from other wikipedia articles which make these claims: i hold no particular candle for them. User: BScotland

Well, the Aristotle translation (from your above link) makes a good case for Aristotle Physics Book II, Chapter 8:
"Whenever all the parts turned out as they would if they had come to being for a purpose, these creatures survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise [and were maladapted] perished — and still do perish ...” [I have to admit here that Aristotle does credit Empedocles a bit later, and this is a better reason for your and WP's view that Empedocles was father to the thought.]
Whereas, using the Arthur Fairbanks translation of Empedocles Fragments and Commentary (link from WP Empedocles) I can't find a similarly convincing section from Empedocles himself. It seems to me that Khan Amore (your link) has over-interpreted Empedocles' rather obscure text. And on using WP articles: one can generally rely on the main-stream biogs, if only because there's a lot of biographical material in print to signpost the way. But interpreting fragments of pre-Socratic philosophers, well, that's quite another thing!
I'm coming round to the view that we might quote the section from Aristotle including his credit to Empedocles, because we have no real guarantee that what survives from Empedocles is actually the material which convinced Aristotle. Allow me pause to consult some non-web scholarship on Aristotle's physics.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if, a) we had the Greek for the Empedocles quote, and b) said text could reasonably be translated to include the words "fittest" and "survive". The quote would speak for itself. Absent that, tho, referencing Aristotle's props to him would be nice, I think. Eaglizard (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I added some text on Empedocles and even a mention of Anaximander. I found a translation of the relevent text from Aristotle that I liked better at talkOrigins, but I included the Amore site as a reference as well. Thanks for the research.Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent paragraph, Rusty (although I ofc made a few minor copy-edits b/c I'm anal like that ;). I think most ppl will be quite surprised (like I was) to read how much of the "modern" synthesis and Darwin's "radical" ideas were prefigured throughout, stretching all the way back before Aristotle even. (I should also add that I love the sections detailing the Muslim thinker's ideas, and strongly encourage any possible expansion of that.) I find it amazing, and fascinating. :) Eaglizard (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Where's this "impact on Western science" mentioned in last sentence of Islamic thought? I think there was no influence on ideas about evolution, and that influences on other sciences are irrelevant to the context. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's helpful to be more specific: the reference attached to the 'impact' passage contains all sorts of overstatements and wild claims. Reading the ref, I notice passages such as "Al-Jahiz’s zoology and theory of biological evolution have profoundly affected the development of zoology and biology." This is simply not true. Another case: "There is no doubt that the great evolutionist sufi, Mawlana, had already influenced Goethe, who called him “a Darwinian before Darwin”." This is interesting, because it shows the author isn't aware of the distinction between Erasmus Darwin and Charles Darwin. Another example: "Darwin was himself initiated into Islamic culture in Cambridge under a jewish orientalist called Samuel Lee." [gives ref "See Darwin (Sir F.), The Life and Letters of’ Charles Darwin, vol. I, London, 1887, p. 289. Samuel Lee (1783-1852), of Queen’s, was professor of Arabic and Hebrew."] The ref is welcome, but the substantive statement is far too strong.
Although I agree that some islamic authors proposed some kind of evolution, I see no reason to think they had the slightest effect on the the theory as proposed by Charles Darwin; and so I think that the final sentence of that section is incorrect. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
After searching unsuccessfully for more direct evidence for a couple of days now, I have gone ahead and changed "appear to have had" to "may have had". It is true that the source cited does have a very questionable claim about a direct influence on Charles Darwin which was debated and resolved on this talk page a few months ago, but it also makes the valid point that some of this material had been published in Europe in the 17th and early 18th century. Personally, especially given the well known influence of Arab works in other areas of science and philosophy, I think it is quite likely that Lamarck, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Kant, Lord Monboddo, or one of the other figures discussed in the early modern or early 19th century sections might have been exposed to some of this material. However, I have been able to turn any direct evidence up. So until someone does "may have had an influence" seems like a reasonable compromise. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for FAC again?

I would like to get this article ready for another FAC try. I think the main thing I am not sure of is when Eaglizard might be done with his/her very valuable copy editing efforts.Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] ==islamic natural selection?????

This is the reason why i have removed any refernces to islamic ideas on natural selection, yet another massive, gross misrepresentation of the so called "islamic science", clearly demonstrating that once again the proffessionals of islamic science have absolutely no clue about science themselves, or history and are only intersted in distortions of massive proportions.

here's little biology lesson for whoever writes this nonense about nautral selection and evoltuion on islamic thought. what is natural selection, well what darwin told is this species exist within a particular environment, then ones that posses certain charateristics, that is ones they are born with will be able to feed themselves better and survive and reproduce more then the species that do not have those traits, hence the fundemental principle of evolution though natural selection, nautral selection acts on individuals, but only populations can evolve, as Darwin said those species are naturally selected. So where does this apply here. Evolutionary thought has existed for millienia, what Darwin did is he provided us with the framework of how evolution happened, natural selection, as mentioned above. Nowhere has any muslim philosopher provided an ounce of a description of evolution through natural selection. all they have done is implied that certain species evoloved from others., but thats not natural selection. Natural selection is the framework within which evolution happens. Last and most importantly, Darwin went about scientifically proving natural selection, through his studies of species on the Galápagos Islands. He did not invoke God or any angles in his thesis, since thats not science, but mere religious philosophy, and he thesis consisted of several books, not a couple of paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 08:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fossil evidence of human evolution (various)

3.2.3 Opposition to transmutation: re harsh treatment of Grant: see William Lawrence for an even better example.

Lawrence is an interesting topic. His is omitted from most accounts of evolutionary history and Darlington has been accused of mis-stating some of the facts. For example see this link: [3] Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

3.3.1 Application of theory to humans: If you check with Thomas Henry Huxley 1.3.1 Man's position in nature, you'll see that the first Neanderthal skull-cap was found in 1857, and THH reported his observations in 1863; 1884 was Dubois' discovery of erectus in Java. From the point of view of evolution the Neanderthal discovery was epoch-making; I think the description of them as 'very similar' is a judgement that doesn't need to be made here.

I don't know where you got the 1884 date for Java man but my sources say 1891. They also say Dubois didn't even leave for Indonesia before 1887. The Neanderthal skull find was indeed important. However Huxley himself realized that it made a poor candidate for a 'missing link' between humans and apes because the cranial capacity (which was the characteristic everyone was hung up on at the time) was essentially the same as a modern human. I have revised the wording to be more precise than 'very similar'. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the Owen/Huxley para tends to suggest that Lyell and Wallace had views on the Owen/Hux debates; but of course they were concerned with other issues. It's clear Wallace was concerned with how nat sel could give rise to the human brain; and Lyell is full of opaque comments which amount to an unwillingness to tolerate rational explanations which run counter to revealed religion. Did Lyell agree humans shared a common ancestor with apes? Hmm... I think I'd say less about Lyell.

Huh? Wallace most certainly had views on the Owen/Huxley debate and most certainly participated in it with vigor. His essay "The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from the Theory of 'Natural Selection'" which he read to the Anthropological Society in 1864 was one of the most important scientific follow ups to Huxley's book (and to Lyell's), and a favorite of Darwin's. Wallace wouldn't have his fallout with Huxley and Darwin on the evolution of higher mental faculties until near the end of the decade. It is true that Lyell's ideas on evolution changed over time but it was actually Lyell (in his very important 1863 book Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man) who first suggested that the human body may have evolved incrementally from anthropoid apes but the human intellect was the product of great leaps forward that might not be part of the ordinary course of nature. Although Wallace would push the idea hardest. I think the text on Wallace and Lyell in this section is perfectly appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone hand-axes had been correctly interpreted by the end of the 18thC, by Frere (I think).

Yes, but for purposes of this article the key insight was not that stone artificats had been produced by humans, but the acceptance of the idea that the discovery of them in association with fossilized remains of extinct pliestocene animals ment that humans had coexisted with extinct animals such as Mammoths and Irish elk, and that was not widely accepted until the middle of the 19th century.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Under 3.3.2.1 Theistic evolution: I'm not quite sure how Asa Gray thought God acted, but I am sure that he was in a different league from Mivart and Argyle. Gray was a believer in natural selection, and in rational explanations of the natural world, despite being a believing Christian.

There were differences between Gray and Mivart and Argyle. Gray believed that natural selection was very important, but that God directed or biased the variations on which natural selection operated in order to guide the course of evolution. Mivart and Argyle did not put much stock in natural selection which they considered inherently immoral but instead believed that God ordained certain rules that guided the development of new species, which made them inherently antagonistic to Darwin's ideas where as Gray was not. Despite these differences many historians group them together under the heading of theistic evolution, and that does not seem unreasonable as they all believed that God intervened more or less directly in the evolutionary process in order to accomplish his purpose. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have revised the text to reflect the fact that while Gray believed in theistic evolution, he did not reject natural selection the way that Argyle or Mivart did.Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for the Lawrence ref; and of course you're right about Wallace (what was I thinking of?}. So I withdraw my objection to that passage. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Darwin and design: historical essay has the slightly different take that "One point that Gray argued at some length was that natural selection was not inconsistent with natural theology. Darwin, according to Gray, said only that nature proceeded according to fixed laws; he wrote only of secondary causes, not of first causes. He left questions such as the origin of life, and the design of nature's laws open, for theologians to answer as they might." If that's useful, I've given it ref name=Darwindesign so the same ref can be cited as required.
I don't think we are dealing with conflicting sources here, but rather a case where sources emphasized different parts of the story, and a figure (Gray) whose views changed over time (much like the dispute over Lyell's evolutionary views). Bowler describes Gray's initial views on evolution in a way that is very much consistent with the source you cite. That is that he saw natural selection as a way to explain adaptation by law rather than by miracle, but he goes on to say that those views changed somewhat over time and in 1876 Gray wrote in an essay "Wherefore, so long as gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms in Nature argue design, and at least while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume in the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines." (Bowler 2003 p. 206). This is pretty clearly an effort to reconcile evolution with natural theoology and the argument by design, and it was quite influential in America in the late 19th century.Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The William Lawrence reference gives a different slant to that article, though it is referenced there. Perhaps the article should be reviewed to avoid giving too much of a suggestion that Lawrence had evolutionary ideas. Desmond & Moore's Darwin p. 253 has info that differs a bit from that article, stating that he was forced to resign and recant his views. They also note that Darwin used a pirated copy, as shown at Inception of Darwin's theory#Secret notebooks 4th para., and on p 295-296 mention the memory of Lawrence's fate as one of the factors stopping him from publishing his 1842 essay. Is it worthwhile me adding these points to that article, or does someone have a better source? . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for someone to do a little research and take a hard look at the Lawrence article.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The Lawrence article has been revised and extended as a result of the Mudford ref and actually reading the book! Checking the various points is anything but simple, given the style of language and the absence of an index. Comments on it are more than welcome. Macdonald-ross (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Would it be helpful for the general understanding of all to include what appears to me to be a good latin motto explaining somehow more what Evolution of Life means to Evolutionists ? : VITA ORIUNDUS SUBSTANCIA FORTUITO : Life originates by chance from substance or mater. (Latin expression by : George F. Thomson, c.2008) Kind Regards: GeorgeFThomson (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

..................................................................................................

[edit] Major pruning

After reviewing the comments from the last FAC User:Dave souza has convinced User:Macdonald-ross, and I that this article is too long and too detailed to be consistent with the guidelines in WP:Summary style. Therefore in the next few days we are going start a program of streamlining this article by moving detail into subsidary articles with the idea of making the main article easier to navigate and the main points easier to grasp. If anyone has a problem with this idea, or with the specific edits please let us know.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic mini-thoughts

There is still a carefree use of the word 'evolution' in places, as if any ideas of change were qualified as an account of evolution: 2nd, 3rd, 5th sentences. Third para goes right overboard with "sophisticated evolutionary ideas", followed by examples which are nothing at all like Darwinian usage. I remain agnostic, if not quite an unbeliever on the subject, despite Draper.

Rest of article looks pretty good to me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


I am researching this topic. I have found a few good sources such as [4] but it is slow going. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Similar edits have been made at the History of psychology article, to the dismay of the professional historians who contribute there. A debate has since emerged, at Chris Green's blog, which may be of interest to this group as well.[5] -JTBurman (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As a sort of aside, Taner Edis (January 2008). The History of Science Society : The Society. Islamic Creationism: A Short History Newsletter, Vol. 37, No.1. History of Science Society. Retrieved on 2008-02-23. shows a rather less enlightened Islam. The newsletter looks like a useful resource, and serendipitously the lead article Wikipedia and the History of Science is trailed as "Can Wikipedia succeed as a public-education tool? When it comes to history of science, Sage Ross says yes, but only if historians learn to use this powerful tool."........ dave souza, talk 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that essay by Ross was what catalyzed the debate at the blog.[6] -JTBurman (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
I have edited the first paragraph of the Islamic subsection so that it carefully matches only what Draper actually said and I have removed all the citation needed banners and notes.Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Still unconvinced, I draw attention again to this extract:

"Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) expressed sophisticated evolutionary ideas regarding how the species evolved: from matter into vapor and thence to water, then minerals into plants and then animals, leading to apes and, finally, humans."

This is nothing at all to do with evolution as we think of it; almost every pre-scientific thinker has come up with a scala naturae with man at the top. Not only are these ideas not sophisticated or evolutionary, they are not scientific at all. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true of most of the ideas in the antiquity section. They were philosophic rather than scientific in nature. There is a reason why these folks thought of themselves as natural philosophers and no one even bothered to coin a term for what we could consider a "scientist" until Whewell did it in the 19th century. What it does show is that not every culture was as wedded to concepts like platonic essentialism and the fixity of species as the West. Admittedly the Islamic evolutionary ideas were more associated with concepts of alchemic transmutation than with what we could now consider science, but that was also true for 18th and 19th century western ideas (hence the phrase transmutation of species). As for "sophisticated" evolutionary ideas, that is clearly a WP:peacock word and I will remove it.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since the 1960s: Niche Construction

Is there room here for the inclusion of niche construction as a sub-section? As the contemporary general presentation of the Baldwin effect, it seems to have a place. -JTBurman (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. The Baldwin effect merits a mention. I am going to be reworking the "since the 1960s" section. Hopefully the result will be to condense it a bit, but I will try and work in an allusion to revived debate about the Baldwin effect. I will also add a brief historical discussion to "The eclipse of Darwinism article" where historically it belongs (as part of the response to Weismann's rejection of Lamarckism). Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a brief discussion of the development of the Baldwin effect to the Eclipse of Darwinism article where it would historically belong. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted material on Hinduism

I deleted the following material on Hinduism that was recently added:

Hindu thought The earliest literary evidence comes from Hindu sacred texts such as the Vedas which also delve into scientifically analyzing the concept of God. According to the Vedas creation of the universe is shrouded in mystery. The Rig Veda says:

"Then was not non-existence nor existence: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider." There has also been some comparison between the avatars of Lord Vishnu and Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as the ten incarnations of the Hindu god mirror increasing phylogenetic sophistication in keeping with the theory's proposal of terrestrial reptiles and mammals evolving from aquatic and amphibian life. Accordingly, the list of the avatars goes as follows- Matsya-the fish, Kurma-the turtle, Varah-the boar, Narsingh-the half man-half lion being, Vaman-the dwarf man, Parshuram-the forest dweller, Rama-the ideal man, Krishna-the Divine man, Buddha-the spiritual man and Kalki-the tech-savvy avatar which is yet to take birth.

I deleted it becauese it does not seem connected to biological evolution which is the topic of this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pared down material on computor science

I deleted the following:

[edit] Computer sciences

Main article: Evolutionary computation

Recent decades have seen a rising interest in evolution within the computer sciences. Evolutionary computation, specifically evolutionary algorithms have found many applications in science and engineering as a means to solve complex problems, called combinatorial optimization problems. These algorithms have underlying mathematical principles based on an analogy with evolution, sharing concepts such as populations, generations, selection and mutation. The performance of these algorithms, also compared to other, more traditional optimization methods, are seen as evidence by some in support of evolutionary biology and its validity.

I replaced it with a sentence in "Evolutionary paths and processes" alluding to evolutionary computation which I think is more appropriate level of coverage for an article about biological evolution. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)