Talk:Introduction to evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Introduction to evolution article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.
Featured article star Introduction to evolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Archive
Archives
Dec 2006
Jan/Feb 2007

Mar-Aug 2007
Aug-Nov 2007
Dec 07-Jan 08

.

Contents

[edit] Please Read --- However don't assume the worse.

This is the introduction (below):


  • Awedewit would you please look it over for issue with prose, grammar. etc... to see if this is suitable. I shall never ask again --- promise; god willing --- this will be the end of the "evolution" of Introduction.
  • When the last person is finished with the edits to the intro and summary please give a shout out so the it might be reviewed for grammar and prose. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 19:46, 22

January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The 'lead' seems to have settled down. After all the re-writes, it is simpler and now scores at a Grade 12 level. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you also considering looking at the summary that has also undergone a similar re-write? Should the ink ever dry. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The 'summary' seems to have settled down. After all the re-writes, it is simpler and now scores at a Grade 12 level. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Additional Notes:


  • Y Done Whether to delete or merge has already been discussed and was overwhelmingly rejected as an option.
  • Y Done Future commentaries to convince the contributors that this article is not FA are no longer necessary. Such opinions have been strongly voiced on the FA page; no need to try to convince anyone here. It is FA.


  • Y Done Allegations of ownership - also clearly stated on the FA page including a rather lengthy commentary on the discussion page are more than adequately make the point- again no need to convince anyone here.
  • Y Done Frank discussion should not be confused with incivility. Passion is just that - passion. Challenges on the FA page will be addressed; a defensive tone there is to be expected.
  • In your reviews --- consider ways to clarify and minimize overly complex science terminology. When a scientific term is used, consider finding a way to define it without being disruptive to the concept being conveyed.
  • On "Dumbing Down"; general terms are acceptable; we should assume our audience can read. It is not the lack of reading skills or basic vocabulary that is the barrier to understanding; but the overly complex science. If they can not read -- then simple Wikipedia is the answer. For example: Changing Variations among offspring have led the enormous diversity in organisms today. - into - The many differences in the children can cause big differences in creatures today. Is not likely to contribute to a clearer understanding. Avoid insulting the audience; the goal should be clarifying the topic to those that are not strong in science... which does not translate an assumption that they lack basic reading skills. Quote from above: "Adults as well as adolescents should find this article useful."
  • Finally --- The best advise I gleaned from reading the comments above. One that should be the guiding light and one that I shall attempt to follow is: 'I do agree that we don't need to explore every esoteric piece of information and should instead avoid minutia whenever possible. TableManners.

--- the tendency to do that comes from responding to the expert's demands for specificity. Read the Evolution article and see the consequence of such a strategy. GENERAL KNOWLEDEGE.

On why we are here:
If your mission here is to convince the FA director that is not FA worthy; then you've likely accomplished that goal -- enough said - you are now merely a disruptive force.
If your mission here is to convince me that the article is poorly written; snowballs chance in hell of that.
If your mission here is to convince the contributors that this article has no purpose --- demands a major rewrite ---etc. Please feel free --- but as a courtesy would you consider waiting until after it has been reviewed by the FA director or at least be willing to contact the 10 individuals that voted support on the FA page so that the are aware of dramatic changes and have the opportunity to reconsider. However, I suggest letting the ink dry on this.


So Awedwit --- as the expert in the prose, would you please take one last look at the version above, which at this time is currently in the article. I will make the necessary edits per your suggestions.


Again --- can someone archive the self-implosive commentaries so we can cleanse the spirit. Maybe we can start the new page with commentary that better reflects the hard work of the many who have contributed. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am completely on-side. The article is very good. I do believe it can be simplified further. I will do nothing without concensus. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking a break; someone close the door on the way out! --Random Replicator (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I have closed the door. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple wiki

Why is there a link to the simple Wiki in the lead? Is this a practice we want to see started in FAs and other articles (I hope not)? Is there a guideline somewhere that supports this (I suspect not)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of "The"s in section headings. (See WP:MSH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Corrected both problems. Cheers ! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm spotting numerous, random errors in the citations:

  • Some journals are italicized, others are not. ^ a b Niles Eldredge (Spring 2006). VQR - Confessions of a Darwinist 32–53. The Virginia Quarterly Review. Retrieved on January 16, 2008.
  • endash on date ranges. ^ Michael T. Ghiselin (September-October 1994). Nonsense in schoolbooks: 'The Imaginary Lamarck'. The Textbook Letter. The Textbook League. Retrieved on December 26, 2007.
  • Inconsistent punctuation and lack of retrieval dates (what is the puncutation standard here for multiple authors?). Bambach, R.K.; Knoll, A.H. & Wang, S.C. (December 2004), "Origination, extinction, and mass depletions of marine diversity", Paleobiology 30 (4): 522–542
  • Incorrect publication dates listed on news source. ^ McGourty, Christine (2002). Origin of dogs traced. BBC News. Retrieved on December 14, 2007.

And so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the simple wiki link is because this is an introduction article, but still gets a bit deep, and the simple wiki is the next level up in simplicity. Of course, I wrote the Simple Wikipedia article (and it's the equivalent of an FA over there) so I may not be a neutral party in wanting its inclusion. Adam Cuerden talk 17:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's included in inter-wikis (or should be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just made three sample edits of trivial fixes needed. There were footnote placement issues throughout (WP:FN, I corrected, but please take note for future); there are empty parameters on cite templates (not technically against any guideline, but chunk up the article size and make editing harder); and there is unnecessarily complex HTML markup on headings (also makes editing harder than necessary). I'm surprised to find so many basics out of whack after such a long stint at FAC; is TimVickers on board? He can clean these things up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:NBSP, numerical and non-numerical elements should be joined by a non-breaking hard space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


The simple wikipedia link was originally in the "See also" section at the bottom. This section turned into a link farm, and was cleaned out, and it was decided that it should be moved to the top, in a position of prominence rather than the interwiki links on the left hand side only. I personally think that although it might be against MOS, it is not a bad idea, at least for this kind of article.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been numerous criticisms over format of citations and request for help--- but basically it has been me teaching myself. I guess that comes as part of the ownership that has been bestowed on me by my critics! --Random Replicator (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the extra template material as requested. Let me know when the introduction and summary are finished so that I can request Awedwit to review a final copy. The FA director probably needs something thats remotely stable before considering FA status.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am starting the copy edit of the citations. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue how to help you on that... I barely figured out how to do the templates. One line that seems out of place in a scientific article. In the summary: better than its "neighbor" can. Ending on the word can; doesn't feel right. And neighbor seems out of sorts with the general flow of things. Is there something that could be substituted? Not a big deal --- not worth the usually 20 pages! Awedewit is in retirement from this project; a right she has more than earned! So we may have to live with whatever skills we have. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed footnotes and place them into the body of the text. It seems ludicrous to have footnotes in an article that is supposed to be accessible. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped editing for the day. There is still stuff to do, especially in the external link section. Also, WP:NBSP, numerical and non-numerical elements should be joined by a non-breaking hard space needs to be look at. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk)

I'm back editing. I will try to address all of SandyGeorgia's concerns today. That is. the 'no-break' issue and the template issue. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Server seems to be in slow motion. So will return later. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I believe I have corrected the problems SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) found. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Publication dates still aren't correct (I fixed one as a sample), I fixed footnote placement again (please see WP:FN, refs go after punctuation with no space), and there is WP:OVERLINKing to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we do a sorta of informal poll as to whether the species barrier should go. If there is an overwhelming consensus ---- deleting is easy. If not a clear consensus; then lets try to avoid it becoming an issue. We so need some sense of stability for awhile. Whatsupwestcoast did shut the door!--Random Replicator (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll start it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Species barriers

Should the elaborate discussion of barriers stay of go: (‘go' meaning reduced to a sentence or so.)

Go. I think the elaborate explanation could profitably be folded into the main article on Evolution. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Go --- but sadly. I looked in Evolution and only found a minor reference so I guess it is not need here either. I constructed this entry off of my notes; without any particular "big picture" in mind. But guys, this is on my state standardized course of study; every teacher worth their salt discusses "mules". If it is not in the Real Deal next door (may have over-looked it) I'm perplexed. But yea ... Go .... :( --Random Replicator (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There a brief mention of prezygotic and post zygotic factors in the section "Speciation". Can someone do a link in there to this Isolating mechanisms; assuming the barrier section that follows speciation goes? Crap maybe they could use our stuff?--Random Replicator (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow take a look --I recommended sending ours there and linking to it If they don't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Go-Kinda. There should be a home for it in an article somewhere though. Question-what is the point trying to be made with it in these textbooks? I guess what I'm wondering is what illustrative value is put to examples of non evolutionary phenomenon in the genetic population, as with the status quo H.W equilibrium, because otherwise what makes sense to me would be to change the discussion there a little bit from "Barriers to breeding between species" to "Barriers to breeding that lead to speciation". With that approach, the basic fundamental ideas can be addressed without going into technical terms. Just a stick-figury outline of what I'm thinking is, 'descendants of a common ancestor can develop into completely separate species when there are barriers that prevent certain organisms in the population from interbreeding with others in the group-those barriers can be geographic (examples), or genetic (examples), or behavioral (example) etc-when some in the population and their descendants stop interbreeding freely/randomly in the whole population, and instead develop into and interbreed within a smaller group, the groups become separate lineages, each one evolving on an independent path, over time diverging into distinct species.' HW tends to help illustrate how powerful natural selection must be causing speciation. But even non-adaptive "barriers" can be strong factors-and it's more important to put the concepts in there than it is to get technical about each various kind of barrier, I think. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. If no last minute objections, tomorrow the section will Go. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I am going to resect the barriers section and plunk it down as a gift in toto to the main article Evolution. Probably, a sentence or two should be crafted about barriers as a replacement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quibble

Quibble – shouldn't "The understanding of evolutionary biology began with the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. " really be "The modern understanding of evolutionary biology began with the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. "? .. dave souza, talk 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"The modern understanding ...": isn't that an anachronism? Was there 'evolutionry biology' before Darwin? I know that historians of science like to project backwards; from Lamarck, to Erasmus Darwin, all the way to various Roman writers. Still, withour Darwin, there was no 'evolutionary biology' to understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I vote for the "modern understanding", although it is a moving target. How about "For purposes of this article, the study of evolutionary biology begins with the 1859..."? Evolutionary biology (the science) predates Darwin, but in his time it was known as natural history and was studied most extensively by paleontologists and natural history museum curators. --Una Smith (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think "The modern understanding of evolutionary biology began ..." would do the trick nicely. No need to be too pernickety about the meaning of "modern". It's a broad-brush statement (as befits a lead section) and a broad-brush interpretation of "modern" is fine. Snalwibma (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wassupwestcoast, for info, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was significant as a biologist (even though he's misremembered for an aspect of his evolutionism), as were Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Robert Edmond Grant, to exemplify the two main schools of evolutionary biology in the early 19th century. Indeed Robert Jameson has been credited with being the first to use "evolved" in its modern sense, a word that's conspicuously (almost completely) absent from On the Origin of Species. Darwin's achievement was huge, but that shouldn't obscure the fact that he built on the work of others. Indeed, there does seem to be a common creationist misconception of undisturbed religious unity before 1859, missing out on a period of fascinating and complex debate about theology, geology and biology. But I digress. ... dave souza, talk 10:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally understand and know the arguments. Nevertheless, please, the article is an INTRODUCTION... we don't need to explore every esoteric piece of information and should instead avoid minutia whenever possible. The nuance and minutia do not help the neophyte biologist get the gist of 'evolution'. The adjective 'modern' to the eye of an adolescent makes it sound like 'evolution' was invented in the last decade. Two hundred years ago is not 'modern' to an audience who thinks Pink Floyd is classical music. Maybe, it really is impossible to write a simple explanation of 'evolution' on Wikipedia. Maybe, on the Evolution article, we should make a prominent link suggesting that anyone who wants an 'intro to evolution' ought to go to his or her local public library and read Greg Krukonis' (2008). Evolution For Dummies. ISBN 0-470-11773-7. . I give up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me being pedantic and putting my foot in it :-/
Here's an idea for avoiding the "problem" and making it slightly tighter, also mentioning the combination of Darwin's and Mendel's theories –

Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of organisms, both alive today and long extinct. Natural selection was shown in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. These theories combined gave an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance. Further discoveries on how genes mutate, as well as advances in population genetics explained more details of how evolution occurs. Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation). They have observed the speciation process happening both in the laboratory and in the wild. This modern view of evolution is the principal theory that scientists use to understand life.

Think that works better? . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Book sources are missing page numbers. Also, mentioned above that WP:OVERLINKing needs to be addressed, and publication dates should be completed (for example, news sources need exact pub. dates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence

Sorry guys, but I still don't like the lead sentence. Darwin's The Origin of Species is not about evolution per se but about evolution by natural selection. Recall that in order to illustrate his concept of natural selection, Darwin devoted much of the book to familiar examples of artificial selection: dog breeds, pigeons, etc. Natural selection and artificial selection are just two of several processes that can result in evolution. The creation/evolution debate is unfortunately complicated by many people on both sides confusing evolution with natural selection; for the most part, the debate concerns only creation vs natural selection. This is why it is important that the sentence be correct. --Una Smith (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem? Do you dislike the word "natural", or what? In what way is the sentence incorrect? Snalwibma (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Darwin's book is about both, though he only uses the term "evolved" once. To overcome the then current perception amongst most scientists that species were immutable and that new species were created every now and then in an unknown manner, he had to examine in depth "Variation" under domestication and under nature, and show that transmutation was feasible as an explanation. His success at the time was in convincing the scientific community about evolution, but natural selection was harder to grasp and was strongly disputed well into the 20th century. The creationist anti-evolution crusade began in the 1920s, to a significant extent in a reaction to reports of German "Darwinismus" – probably Haeckel's ideas which rejected natural selection in favour of a kind of Spencerian Lamarckism. My understanding is that many modern creationists regard natural selection as a truism, but believe that it is confined in a magical way to "microevolution" and can't result in new species/kinds/baramins or whatever. dave souza, talk 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Una Smith (talk · contribs), but the article is "Introduction to Evolution". I don't understand your reasoning. This is NOT an article about Darwin and the 'Origin of Species'. Darwin represents the historical starting gate. This is an article about EVOLUTION...and, it is and an INTRODUCTION to the topic meant for those not sophisticated enough to follow the science in the main article Evolution. The lead sentence is correct and carries no error in the definition of evolution. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not clearer. The problem is that the lead currently defines evolution as though it were a synonym of natural selection. It is not. Again, this is a matter of accuracy; keep it simple, but without promoting misunderstanding. --Una Smith (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I must be too dense, but I just do not see it. And do not be confused by the title of Darwin's book. Darwin himself wrote that natural selection was not the only mechanism involved in evolution.--Filll (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, at last I see what you mean, Una. The text says "Evolution is the ... process... This process is called natural selection." Yup - I concede that there may be a slight problem (though I still think it's wise not to get too hung up on the semantic niceties). If others feel that this is a problem worth solving, I would suggest a solution that does not change the lead sentence but alters the way in which natural selection is brought in - something like "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations... The main mechanism driving evolution is called natural selection..." I still think it's perfectly OK to call evolution itself a process! Snalwibma (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok sounds good to me--Filll (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Numbers

If one person can do it for consistency - strike through once they are actually in the article. Hopefully someone has access to the books to seek out missing page numbers! --Random Replicator (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many templates.. where does the page number go?--Random Replicator (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

* citation: 23 --- should be page 16 for The Third Chimpanzee --Random Replicator (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • citation 25 (a) pages 25-27 What Evolution Is--Random Replicator (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 25 (b) pages 165-169 What Evolution Is --Random Replicator (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 26 page 8 Elements of Chordate Anatomy --Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 56 page 35 Selfish Gene --Random Replicator (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 19 page 76 Lewell Principals of Geology ... danmn that one was hard to relocate.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 18 page 5-6 The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know About Human Evolution. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 21 page 360 Dinosaur in a Haystack Random Replicator (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • citation 28 Vestigial Organs and Structures. In Encyclopedia of Evolution. No access--Random Replicator (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Citation 35 Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. No access--Random Replicator (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Citation 38 From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design No access--Random Replicator (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Could drop --- its doubled citing the same information.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Citation 45 Populations, Species, and Evolution. no access --Random Replicator (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Random Replicator (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add the page numbers in. Unfortunately, the cite templates are not friendly to non-sequential page references in the same book. I'll do the singletons first. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... there are few that I can't access a book for. A uniformitarian perspective --- should that be An--Random Replicator (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Depends if you aspirate the 'u'? That's a joke: as in a hotel or an hotel. I think it is "a". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully someone can validate some page numbers for the rest or we will have to go through the miserable task of finding an alternative --- which I'm sure would thrill Wasupwestcoast; since he spent so much energy getting these FA worthy. Come now you well read people! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Before I start, would anyone object to me changing the entire referenceing system to the Harvard citiation method. It is so much easier to edit and add multi-page numbers. I'm willing to do it. see Wikipedia:Harvard referencing. Short term pain for long term gain...especially if you have to bash off the vandals later :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard citations. I've isolated all books to Harvard citations so that page numbers can adequately dealt with. The cite templates do not allow multi pages ref to the same book. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your from the frozen north ... right? I hear winters can be soooo long up there. Lucky you stumbled across this little project to keep ya busy. If no one drops in with page numbers; then maybe I can get by a library or bookstore. The remaining books were added over the year by many different people. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, my common sense is frozen. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wiki-link -- I actually thought is was per section. But if it is one per article then the over-linking is because the word in linked in both the introduction and in that specific section. Which would logically go? --Random Replicator (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's one per section, unless the FA crew have changed their rules again. If the section is a bit away from the earlier link, another link allows readers ready access. In my opinion the first section AND the lead should both have one link each to Charles Darwin and to On the Origin of Species, for example, but SandyGeorgia has unlinked them. Please resolve. ..dave souza, talk 05:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The format with the authors in the text ... is that compatible with the numerical - end notes for everything else? --Random Replicator (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It works pretty well, but if it's preferred to keep all the references as footnotes, simply put the inline harvard template between ref and /ref tags – for an extreme example of such referencing, see Charles Darwin. I'll add a demonstration example here.. dave souza, talk 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC) OK, that's reference 10 done (after a couple of minor blunders, note that in this case the page number links to the page in the external reference :) . . dave souza, talk 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
progress towards an ultimate goal could this bepart of the problem with linking common terms. We could put the hard term (orthogenesis)in parentheses. But is is far more readable without doing that?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For more details on this topic, see Species, Speciation, and Phylogenetics. That isn't an example of doubling linking is it? The see also and in the text. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it is, unless the linked words are remote from the section heading and the reader won't have them ready to hand. .. dave souza, talk 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

--Random Replicator (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for causing a panic. I knew about the bug in the Harvard citation template and didn't do the work around. Basically, two books by the same author but different dates are not seen as different and won't wikilink. I slightly changed them by calling one Gould '(b)' and the other 'Gould (a)'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Dave souza (talk · contribs) makes a good point. We can either have a mixed in-line citation system ...which is legit in the real world, or I can bury the Harvard citations in between <ref> tags. Keeping them outside of the tags makes editing easier. Putting them inside the tags makes things look uniform. For the present, I'll put them inside, and we can reverse later, if that is better. Cheers! 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On Monday, I will go to the public library and try to access the books. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source of variation section

Crick and Watson, (and Franklin and Wilkins), discovered the DNA double helix. They did not explain the chemistry of genes. Too much credit is given to them in this section. In the paper published in Nature, (April 25, 1953), they write: It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material. That's all. This paragraph needs to be shortened and moved up to the section beginning, Genes are composed of DNA. Also Morgan knew nothing about the tertiary structure of DNA, he died in 1945, yet his work is described as later research in a paragraph describing the DNA double helix. And, why no mention of Marshall Nirenberg? --GrahamColmTalk 10:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest : vague it. "Research in the 1950's led to ..." The last thing we need are more scientist. In fact, dropping a couple would not hurt the cause.--Random Replicator (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is an introductory article and we do not need detail, even if it is more accurate. If anything we need to be more vague. This is typical. Everyone wants to add more detail and push this detail higher up in the article and into the LEAD and before you know it, we have an unreadable mess. So I would disagree with this strongly. Sorry, that is not the purpose of this article. Take it to a more advanced article.--Filll (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I know it's an introductory article, but that's not an excuse for it to get the facts wrong. I am not suggesting more detail, I am suggesting less. In my fist comment I said that the paragraph in question needs to be shortened. All I am suggesting is this:

Genes are composed of DNA, a long molecule that has the form of a "double helix". It resembles a ladder that has been twisted. The rungs of the ladder are formed by chemicals called nucleotides. There are four types of nucleotides, and the sequence of nucleotides carries the information in the DNA. There are shorter segments of the DNA called genes. The genes are like sentences built up of the "letters" of the nucleotide alphabet. Chromosomes are packages for carrying the DNA in the cells. Earlier research by Thomas Hunt Morgan showed that genes are linked in a series on chromosomes and it is the reshuffling of these chromosomes that results in unique combinations in offspring.

In 1953, biologist James Watson and chemist Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science: they discovered the structure of DNA. This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA. Although such mutations are random, natural selection is not a process of chance: the environment determines the probability of reproductive success. The end products of natural selection are organisms that are adapted to their present environments.--GrahamColmTalk 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --- two less scientist to assualt the little children. Please give it a re-read and tweak as required. Note Watson still keeps his picture. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Second thought would in the 1950's be acceptablly accurate?--Random Replicator (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Even better --- fixed --- yes?--Random Replicator (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doggy picture

Just for information, an alternative Great Dane / Chihuahua picture looked much clearer to me, so as a trial I've commented out the previous picture and added it.[1] By the way, the section above seems sensible, but outwith my knowledge so expert advice needed. ... dave souza, talk 11:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome picture.--Random Replicator (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great picture. I just think the caption is not quite accurate. Comments?--Filll (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture was found at Common descent#Dog breeding, and the caption there adapted to suit. Note that mix links to Mixed-breed dog, and it might be clearer if less euphonic as "a Chihuahua mix and a Great Dane". Dunno, I'm not a doggist. Maybe check with KC ;) .. . dave souza, talk 15:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok now I get it. Duh... I was just being stupid.--Filll (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking that as widespread approval, I've changed the caption and removed the old pic info. .. dave souza, talk 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikilinking

It is an introduction and I was thinking something of a gateway entry. I'd like see some additional (See also). with wikilinks there. Not too fringe --- but any relevant ones that may have been overlooked. The redundant links are mostly the few in the intro that re-emerge in the text, often much later -- and --- the see also and the matching term in the section. --Random Replicator (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be looking for some page numbers on those un-struck books above. --Random Replicator (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] homology

I don't think three birds with different uses of a wing is homology????? Experts please!--Random Replicator (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On self-reflection I was thinking more on the lines of bat, human arm and whale flipper --- but they are all mammals so what is wrong with using all birds? Yes --- excellent Jim ---jolly good! --Random Replicator (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"More specifically, in evolutionary biology, homology has come to mean any similarity between characters that is due to their shared ancestry." Birds' wings are not similar characters, they are the same character. But, of course they're also similar characters and homologous because they have a shared common ancestry, that's why we call them birds, and why we call their forelimbs wings, because they are all birds, but it doesn't show the reader of the article anything to say that the eyes of all apes are homologous, the flippers of all whales are homologous, the tails of all fish are homologous, or the wings of all birds are homologous. What shows homology is to look at characters that we, as humans looking at characteristics of animals, don't already call all the same thing, to show their shared ancestry. The forelimbs of vertebrates is the classic example, the wings of birds and the fore limbs of whales and the human arm are all homologous. We don't necessarily think of them as homologous and of the shared common ancestry of these vertebrates if we're not used to thinking of evolution-and this article is about thinking about evolution. That the wings of birds are all derived from the birds having a shared common ancestry does not have any power in it. Birds' wings are not called different things, they're called wings. But a human forelimb is commonly called an arm, and bird's forelimb is commonly called a wing, and even a bat's forelimb is called a wing, but is a very different animal from a bird's forelimb.
To introduce the concept that things that are different may have a shared common ancestry by giving things that are all the same as an example is pointless. Birds' wings show the great diversity of characters within a group, but they're not a teaching moment in homology. The reader won't go from there to noting the shared common ancestry of humans and birds in time, they'll just go from their to the shared common ancestry of all cats, all apes, all frogs. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer the bat whale human --- seen any of them laying around? --Random Replicator (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Very cool --- put it in! Looks like my "guns" --Random Replicator (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't format it correctly-I tried. The whale needs cropped in on it, and the arm should get the top red cropped off to make it square. Can someone else do this? --Amaltheus (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I gots no skills! Let it sit - someone will come along and have mercy on us. I'm sure everyone will agree that it definitely makes more sense than the birds. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone will agree? What an optimist! But I hope someone has mercy. It was nice WikiCommons already had great pictures of a whale, a bat, and an arm. --Amaltheus (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I just tweaked the pictures to format it more neatly. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Homologous structures. Note how the same basic structure appears repeatedly in different types of forelimbs of different species.


[edit] Watson Crick contributions

Three versions

  • In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the double helix structure of DNA. This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code a….. (The one that reflected an error)
  • In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described how the nucleotide "letters" in double helical DNA naturally form pairs. Nucleotide A always pairs with T, and C always pairs with G. (The current version)
  • In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the structure of DNA. This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code a….. (The modified version I was attempting to inquire about)
I was thinking that perhaps by removing the term "double helix" structure we could satisfy your concern with out the need to expand to a thesis on DNA. A mini-lesson on DNA base pairing seems a bit of overkill here. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the third in that it does not place too much emphasis of the helical nature. The current modification (2nd one) generates a a lot of information. I'm not so sure if all that extra data is to explain the sentence or to clarify our topic on evolution. I'll leave it as is and wait some feedback. Sorry if I'm nit-noding the thing to death.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for number 3. No base pairs. No GCTA. No double helix. Minimal.--Filll (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Selection

It was relocated in the "paper"? --Random Replicator (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested alternative sentence:

"In natural selection the surviving species is the one with random mutations useful to its environment, while in artificial selection the new breed or variety is the one with random mutations attractive to humans. In both natural and artificial selection the variations are a result of random mutations, and the underlying genetic processes are essentially the same."

For:

"There is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection. As in natural selection, the variations are a result of random mutations; the only difference is that in artificial selection, humans select which organisms will be allowed to breed.[25]"

It would still require the same source as the sentence currently in the article, in other words, a source with the conclusion that natural and artificial genetic processes are the same rather than a glossary definition. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Felicitations are in order.--Filll (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Both natural and "artificial" selection produce organisms which are are result of their environments. Humans happen to play a larger role in the latter environment. As the sentence was stated, it suggested that humans were not a part of nature, or were not natural.--Lithfo (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time for deletion

Unless someone can give me a good reason, I believe that this article needs to be deleted. I will be putting it up for AfD.

It was a mistake to believe that such an article could be produced or was needed or wanted. You have all convinced me that I was wrong and it needs to go, so you are no longer offended by its existence. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be deleted! It is a very interesting article and very well written. It is of a relevant subject and one that is current and scientific. WP:DP states that "Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes", so it is rather up to the person that proposed the deletion to justify its action, not of others to defend the opposite.GoEThe (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have argued for this articles creation and defended its existence for over a year. And I have been roundly attacked and criticized for it, and so has the article. I have heard many many arguments for its deletion over a year. Some I agree with, some I disagree with, and some might have some merit. Of course it is not up to me personally to decide, but the community. I was not planning to put it up for deletion unless some convinced me to do so, but it was put up for deletion by someone else so we can hash it out there.

And I will note that it is quite common to file an AfD to bring in community input on an issue. It is a bit of a crude instument, I will admit, but is used as a vehicle for community involvement and discussion and to highlight problems in the thinking of the authoring editors. I have been told over and over and over that I have not seen the situation clearly, so I am willing to canvass the community for input. And now that is happening. Clear?--Filll (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it is generrating an interesting discussion. A shame it has to go to AfD to generate any interest but so be it. For the record I think it should be kept as a valuable complement to Evolution and always thought this was an excellent idea. David D. (Talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame, but the principle authors (myself included) begged and pleaded for well over a month for input. And things took a very negative turn for the worse, frankly because some want this article to not be introductory, but at the graduate school level or higher. Then of course, it would not be introductory. And also our own policies are serving to act towards the articles destruction since we cannot manage our environment in a reasonable fashion and maintain an environment of comity and compromise and consensus, but have to cater to disruptive elements, by its very design.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


On the other hand, if we can get a "mandate" and some level of authority and attention from the AfD, then it will have served its purpose. And elements who are seeking to create a very different article instead will have to go pound sand since they will not have the consensus. And we do things by consensus here, if I am not mistaken. So it might have some positive benefits.--Filll (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Delete

I agree with the users who said that this article shoudlnt be deleted. IT seems very well-written and well-reserched. If you think that it should bedeleted, then maybe it should be merged into the actual Evolution article, which is a lot more comfplicated and might be able to use some streamlining to make it as easy to understand as this one is. I don't thinkthat their are any restrictions on length so there is no reason why this article should be deleted. I am going to contest the deletion nomination unless someone says that it's a bad idea to do sod. Smith Jones (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than "Evolution for Dummies". The article should be delete, not a FA and I think it was wrong to close the AFD 3 days early. TJ Spyke 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not written for dummies. It is written for bright people who are not biologists. Big difference. David D. (Talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree -- It's better for biologists too. I think this is simply a better article than evolution and should replace it (with a bit of work with merging). The evolution article is too full of peripheral definitions that are really unnecessary. E.g. it has sections on "extinction" and "genetic drift" which might fit into an "evolution" text book, but really don't need to be included in depth in the article. "Introduction" is simply a better article —Pengo 13:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA!!?!

Congratulations! Professor marginalia (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From me too! I can't help but be amused that it was promoted while at AfD. Has this happened before? Geometry guy 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This has restored my belief in and enthusiasm for of the whole project. --GrahamColmTalk 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Sometimes, consensus works. And unfortunately, an AfD brings a lot more community attention and focus to many issues. I watched User: Silence do it on a number of occasions previously when he was embattled on an article, putting his own articles up for deletion several times, so that he could get a mandate and consensus. An ugly way to do it, but it does have a way of getting attention to an issue.--Filll (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very cool about the FA. And, AfD and simultaneous FAC is not that unusual. For example, USS Illinois (BB-65) was in the same situation yesterday. I'm happy that this article made FA. I always thought it was really good. Good luck to everyone on maintenance and incremental improvement. Perhaps, a FAQ explaining what is expected of an 'Introduction' might contain editing trouble in the future. I enjoyed working with everyone less one. I'm taking Feb off. I might return here in March. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe in evolution, but well done for creating a well-written article. 172.209.89.174 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's ok, neither do I --- and I actually helped write it. You see, science accepts evolution as a matter of fact based on the large amount of evidence that supports it. At no point is one expected to "believe it"; in that accepting a scientific idea does not require faith. At any point an idea requires belief --- then it is now outside the realm of science. I appreciate your kind words; especially from someone who is skeptical of the idea. Thanks for reading it - hopefully you were able to understand it --- and of course feel free to reject it. This may be the nicest compliment to date; and serves as affirmation that much hard work by so many people actually paid off. Way better than the star. --JimmyButler (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Through the accumulation of thousands of small edits, acted upon by brutal selection forces, this article has become a wondrous thing.
Through the accumulation of thousands of small edits, acted upon by brutal selection forces, this article has become a wondrous thing.

Well done all! Skittle (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plants "2"

Second paragraph under sources of variations.

Animal bias crept in: This is like mixing different hands of cards, with an animal getting a random mix of half of the cards from one parent, and half of the cards from the other. Would the term offspring or perhaps organism be too complex as a substitute.--71.77.211.77 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] make it clear that origin of life is different than evolution

Hi,
as pointed out in the "common misconceptions" linked to from this page, the origin of life and the evolution of life are two separate scientific theories. This is briefly pointed out in the main "theory of evolution" page.

I think it should be mentioned in this "intro to evolution" page as well, precisely because it is a common misconception.

Here is a suggested new beginning for the article:

"Evolution are the changes that happen in all forms of life over generations once life has arisen. How life initially arose is the subject of theories of the origin of life which is different than evolution. Evolutionary biology is the study of how and why evolution occurs. ...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.237.8 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are lots of things that evolution is not, and we are not about to start listing them all. In the opening paragraph the article should stick to what evolution is! Snalwibma (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
When describing something it is common to describe what it is and what it is not. It is important to be explicit that evolution is not about 'origin of life' when there is a common misconception that evolution is about 'origin of life'. If this point isn't made the misconception will not be corrected. Sure, it is not the article's fault that the reader has this misconception, but an opportunity to correct this misconception has been missed.
I suggest that the list of is nots be used to exclude only "common misconceptions" of what evolution is but which are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.237.8 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I respectfully disagree. We will not be including a huge discussion of misconceptions about evolution, or objections to evolution, aside from a link. If someone wants to see those, they can follow the link.

There are several reasons to avoid this. First, we have found by experience that such discussions tend to be troll bait. If you put these in your article, then people show up to argue that you are incorrect since their pastor told them.

Second, the present rough set of topics was determined by consensus, and hours and hours and hours of discussion by dozens and dozens of editors over a year. Who are you to change all that?

Also, if we wanted to include just the most common things that are not covered by the theory of evolution, it would be a long list:

  • evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
  • the big bang is not part of evolution
  • stellar evolution is not part of biological evolution
  • evolution does not explain where gravity comes from or what gravity is, and never was intended to do so
  • evolution does not explain where light beams come from
  • evolution does not explain the origin of the laws of thermodynamics and never was intended to do so.
  • evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the laws of physics
  • evolution does not claim that there is global warming
  • evolution does not dictate that the stronger races of people should wipe out the weaker races of people
  • evolution does not justify slavery, or racism, or wars, and was not the cause of anti-Semitism, or Naziism, or Communism, or teenage pregnancy, or abortions, or divorces, or any number of the other things that the ignorant claim.

If we just included the most important of these "misconceptions" we would have a huge list. And it is best left to other articles. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the article did at one stage include a list of misconceptions, and it was deleted by overwhelming common consent as troll-bait and potentially confusing (look back through the talk page archives). This is intended as a brief introductory article. It includes a very clear link to the "misconceptions" article (and a lot of the material there did at one stage form part of this article, indeed) for those interested in finding out more. I appreciate the point you are making, 99.155.237.8, and there are indeed many misconceptions about evolution which I am also keen to see clarified, but I think the reader is better served by keeping the story-line of this particular featured article very clean and clear, with links to more detail (of all sorts) elsewhere. Snalwibma (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Freeing the masses from their misconceptions on evolution would require a very long article. Informational vs. educational. Different in subtle ways. Remain encyclopedic and opt for the first. Also I boggled through the citation needed script --- but I think it is formated correctly and suitable as a reference. Had to chime in with my two favorite editors ... Like old times - when we were off the radar! --JimmyButler (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, it is also misleading to say it is "not" those things as well. The Modern Synthesis certainly is none of those things, but the idea of evolution via natural selection is, for instance, used in models of abiogenesis. But this article is not, and should not be, "Creationists are morons". That they are is irrelevant to this article; this article is supposed to introduce what evoltuion is, not repudiate stupid creationist statments. There are articles about that, but this article is not one of them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A:T:C:G

A section that expanded grossly (during the appeasement phase) was the Watson and Crick contributions. A concern of the term "double helix structure" being inadequate, lead to a "mini-lecture" on the structure of the DNA molecule. We streamlined everywhere else --- but expanded here.

As follows:

Genes are made of DNA, a long molecule that has the form of a "double helix". It resembles a ladder that has been twisted. Each rung of the ladder is formed by two chemicals called nucleotides. There are four types of nucleotides which are called A, C, G and T. The sequence of nucleotides carries the information in the DNA, just as the sequence of letters in words carry information on a page. There are shorter segments of the DNA called genes. The genes are like short instructions built up of the "letters" of the nucleotide alphabet. Put together, the entire set of these genes give enough information to be a blueprint to build and run an organism. Chromosomes are packages for carrying the DNA in the cells. Early research by Thomas Hunt Morgan showed that genes are linked in a series on chromosomes and it is the reshuffling of these chromosomes that results in unique combinations in offspring. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described how the nucleotide "letters" in double helical DNA naturally form pairs. Nucleotide A always pairs with T, and C always pairs with G.[12] This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA.''

I would like to suggest all of the above be replaced with the following passage or some tweaked version of it:

______

Research by Thomas Hunt Morgan showed that genes are linked in a series on chromosomes. It is the reshuffling of these chromosomes that result in unique combinations of genes in the offspring. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they helped to demonstrate how genes are composed DNA, the chemical that serves as the hereditary code. Advancements in the understanding of the molecular basis for heredity provided an answer to the question that had alluded Darwin and his contemporaries; the source of variations within the population. It is now known that variations within the population are the result of random mutations (changes) in the DNA that composes the genes. Such changes in the DNA can be passed on through the chromosomes to the offspring and then be subjected to the forces of natural selection.

I'm attempting to emphasize the significance of DNA in providing the "missing link" so heavily discussed in previous sections --- especially regarding acquired characterisitcs. The structure of DNA seems to overshadow the signifcance of the discover in the current version.


We lost Weinberg and and a big chunk of speciation --- specific topics to evolution --- to stay focused; yet this section on DNA managed to "blow-up" in more ways than one toward the end of the FA attempt. Anyone still around who might agree with me on this and care to edit what I offer here? --JimmyButler (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy - I strongly agree. Hardy-Weinberg was actually more relevant to a basic understanding of evolution, while the details of four different nucleotides are quite unnecessary. May I suggest this tweaked version of your rewrite:
Research by Thomas Hunt Morgan in the early twentieth century showed that genes are linked in series on chromosomes. It is the reshuffling of these chromosomes that results in unique combinations of genes in the offspring. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they helped to unravel the structure of the DNA molecule that makes up the genes. Advancements in the understanding of the molecular basis for heredity provided an answer to the question that had eluded Darwin and his contemporaries: the source of variations within the population. It is now known that variations within the population are the result of random mutations (changes) in the DNA. Such changes are passed on through the chromosomes to the offspring, and then they are subjected to the forces of natural selection.
Let's see if anyone else has any further suggestions. Snalwibma (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK to me! GoEThe (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections fi you guys are happy. It is just an introduction, after all and we do not want to overwhelm the readers with unwanted detail.--Filll (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cut this down to a single paragraph with much less detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to genetics AfD

Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics.--Filll (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)