Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reformating

A lot of reformating; appreciate the enthusiasm, however, it really looks horrible on my screen. I would be in support of a revert, then perhaps a more systematic approach to the changes. A rather dramatic sequence of format changes without prior discussion. Not sure about the informal writing banner. As an introduction entry it is meant to be a little less uptight. Is the information incorrect? --Random Replicator 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I visited the Guide to better writing. The suggestion are endless on a variety of concerns. If the critic could be more specific to the objections I would be better prepared to make the necessary changes?--Random Replicator 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific Objections:

  1. Huge area of white at top of page due to formatting change; may be a reflection of my 21" wide screen; but if not it needs to be fixed.
  2. Not to keen on the individual module approach to barriers between species. Does not clearly establish that Pre and Post zygotic barriers are the major headings and the others are merely specific examples
  3. The Dawkin's quote gains undue attention in its own special gray box ... is that format required of quotes in Wiki; if not the original format was more aesthetically pleasing.
  4. The see also ... no issues with the format ... but it does make the article "longer" thus more intimidating scroll scroll scroll

Filll ... Snalwibma ... help please!!!!--Random Replicator 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I too see a lot of white space at the top, so it's not just your screen. I've changed the quote format, since I gather (from other comments I've seen in the past) that quote boxes are actually frowned upon in article space. It's certainly not required. Skittle 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, loads of white space. The format worked well before, whichever WP "skin" you chose. Now it's a mess. I propose an instant revert to the old format, then a discussion, if necessary. Snalwibma 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now restored the top-of-page design. A few other changes are maybe OK - I liked the "see also" list in three columns, but perhaps it didn't work on some screens - not so important. I will, however, restore the balance and subordination of headings around "prezygotic barriers" - far too heavy on the headings at present. Snalwibma 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I am not convinced by the need for the "tone" tag that has been inserted below the "An example" heading. This is meant, after all, to be a basic introductory article, and an informal tone seems exactly what is needed. Perhaps 100110100 would like to come here and explain further, with suggestions. Snalwibma 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Followed the suggestion to "discuss the tone on talk page". Open to specifics for improvement; vague criticism offer little assistance. Banner has been removed pending future suggestions. Not too sure about Wiki policy; but banner placement without dialog seems a bit rude to me. Also restored three column format to "see also". Visually compact making for a less intimidating introductory entry. Not an attempt to suggest ownership; however, there is stability and logic to the format and content present. Mass edits to either without discussion are generally discouraged; although input is both encouraged and needed. The numerous edits I made are a reflection of the learning process of making columns.--Random Replicator 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I also disagree whole-heartedly with the claim that the "tone" of the article or any section of the article is unencyclopedic. Someone just shows up, throws a bunch of random changes into the article with no discussion or explanation, and then leaves. I also do not know what was wrong with having the "see also" list in 3 columns, or having a quote in a quote box. These are just sort of nonsense objections. Is there any concrete example that the editors can point to of a serious problem?--Filll 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How was the quote box thing a nonsense objection? Someone wondered why the quote had been put in a quote box, and whether this was required. I, who have watched this article since creation, but haven't wanted to interfere with the more knowledgable as they built the basics, removed the quote box, as I have seen such things specifically described as 'discouraged' in article space, and didn't feel such a change would be controversial. It's not like anyone said 'this article is rubbish because it has a quote box'. People queried and changed the article, as they are supposed to. What's up? :-S Skittle 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Miscommunication ... thank you for reverting to the original. I think he meant "blocked quote" not quote box; since that is the way Filll originally formatted it and the way it is now. Looks perfect. Not to speak on his behalf; but I think he was referring to the edits by 10000001000010000010000 :) --Random Replicator 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Also thank you for your interest, does the overall article pass muster in terms of readablity and clarity?--Random Replicator 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is very nice, I will look at this article more carefully tomorrow. I tried to tweak the first paragraph, but it seems this is well thought through. The only thing would be avoiding the link to population genetics. If we do link to it, then the first sentence "Population genetics is the study of the allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four evolutionary forces" should be simplified here, I tried something like that, but the best approach might be to not link to it at all. At the very least, not a piped link like that. Feel free to ignore if this has been discussed, I didn't look at the issues very carefully. In any case, I LIKE THIS ARTICLE. --Merzul 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginner's review

First of all, I think this is very good, my background is in mathematics, so I know very little about evolution, except what I learned in high-school. Some points after reading this:

  1. The lead is currently a simplified overview of evolution, and so it doesn't do justice to what is covered in this article. I really liked the population genetics section, and I think this article should start in a similar way giving the complicated definition, and promise that it will be explained. The lead can then continue as it is now, or be subtitled "A simple overview" with the lead paragraph instead following more closely what this article is about.
  2. The sections on Darwin and Mendel are very nice, easy to follow, and lead to population genetics in a natural way. I liked that!
  3. Should there perhaps be a forward link to the species section in the Darwin section to indicate the precise definition will be discussed.
    1. What exactly do you mean by "sexual reproduction works by the mixing of separate factors (genes)", perhaps instead "separate", one can use "underlying factors" or what is the meaning of separate here? This could perhaps be explained by expanding what was the previous theory: what does it mean to think that heredity works "by the blending of inherited characters"
  4. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is well-explained,
    1. but just for clarity could the sentence "frequencies of alleles in a population’s gene pool will not change over time unless acted upon by forces other than" be rephrased to avoid a triple negation. The "other than" can easily be missed (or uhm, okay, ignorant and sloppy readers like myself can miss it).
    2. These short footnotes, 4 and 5, could probably be written out in the text.
  5. The example section, again very nice
    1. "For this equilibrium to persist, the following conditions must be met" I'm assuming that with the exception of random mate selection, these conditions map directly into the four evolutionary forces. If this relationship could be more explicit, I think it would be a good thing.
    2. The section ends with this process being called microevolution, whenever you see micro, you wonder what about macro. Here I understand some people think macro is micro and others don't agree, and you consider this outside the scope of this article perhaps, but I don't. I was immediately annoyed by the rude disrespect for symmetry to leave the (what is macroevolution then) completely unanswered.
  6. Evidence for evolution. I like it, minor quibbles:
    1. The Bible reference I don't think is needed, already says the view was supported by current theology.
    2. Comparative anatomy while starting out strong, loses focus near the end: "A common misconception is that organisms re-enact their evolutionary history during fetal development." What is the relationship between this misconception and evidence for evolution? Ah, perhaps the point here is to clarify that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is not the evidence, as some creationist booklets seem to think.
    3. Vestigial structures and convergent evolution perhaps deserve sub-sub-headings?
  7. Artificial selection. The first paragraph should expand what artificial selection means, specifically that it results in certain traits being preferred over others, and so is related to evolution.
  8. Molecular biology. This has been simplified in a way that I don't see this proving evolution very much. I think this needs some substantiation.
  9. (I'm spending too much time on details, skipping to bigger concerns) The species section starts a bit disruptively, it is unclear what it is doing there. I'm not sure where this section should be placed, or perhaps it simply requires a better intro.
  10. I don't like the misconception section. Things like "Evolution is a theory like the theory of gravity" should be made clear by this article presenting as much evidence in an understandable form. I would drop the entire misconception section, putting the useful information in the article, e.g.
    1. That evolution has no goal and no direction can be pointed out at the vestigial structure section.
    2. Many of them can be joined into the next section... which brings us to
  11. Merge the short objection section with the "evolution and culture" into something like "evolution and society", and where is the picture of Darwin as a monkey???????

Ah, well, thank you for reading my ramblings... --Merzul 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merzul you have certainly given us much to consider. This is the first serious critique since the articles inception. I have Spring break in a few days; and I will tackle this list ... it is 2:00 AM ... I can only imagine what damage my edits would do now. No doubt Filll and Snalwimba will be interested in your suggestions as well. It was a very interesting process of constructing this article; I threw words on the screen and they made sense out of them ... I am extremely biased but I thought it came out well. We went with a more flattering picture of Darwin; the one on the main page looks like he is demonically possessed, so we decided to give him a break here! Thanks for the suggestions and the positive comments. --Random Replicator 05:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] compressed text

Seems to be some issues with text formating in introduction at least on my computers; anyone with skills feel free to reformat! --Random Replicator 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have deleted the line <span style="z-index:-1; position:absolute;">, and that seems to have done the trick. Strange... Snalwibma 11:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions without discussion?

A lot of "improvements" without the courtesy of commentary. Granted it is a back-burner entry but a lot of thought did go into its construction. The deletion of the passage regarding micro-evolution for example; was there a reason? Merzul suggestion was that the micro discussion was unbalanced in that it lacked any immediate reference to macro. This is a very good point that needs to be addressed. If you feel a need to contribute then construct a carefully worded explanation that allows the reader to contrast the two views. Do not just "delete". So for now at least, I suggest a revert to return the micro-evolution example; followed by the addition of a simplified explanation of macro to "balance" as per Merzuls suggestions. There were several other excellent suggestions in Merzul's commentary that could also be addressed. Commentary --- Discussion --- Modification; not all that complicated of a process. --71.77.209.218 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) oops ...--Random Replicator 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microevolution and macroevolution

I think the removal of the reference to microevolution is perhaps a good idea. Or, if it does stay, it really would be better to balance it by mentioning macro as well. Maybe something like this:
Such a situation rarely, if ever, exists in a natural population. Therefore, frequencies of alleles in a gene pool are always changing, resulting in the evolution of populations over successive generations. Small-scale changes in the distribution or "frequencies" of genes in a gene pool at the population level are sometimes referred to as microevolution, as opposed to macroevolution, which occurs at the species level or above. The modern evolutionary synthesis, however, sees no real distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, describing the latter as the cumulative effect of the former, with the only difference being one of time and scale.
But maybe it would be better to delete the reference to micro and macro altogether at this point (it runs the risk of being a meaningless diversion from the main story), and instead add an item to the "Common misconceptions" section. Or would that be too contentious (i.e. not clearly enough a misconception)? Snalwibma 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets not add to the misconception list I would rather edit the current section to your passage above. Your explanation seems clear and balanced. ... all in favor?.... opposed? .... Looks like your version wins; at least until someone comes along and deletes it :) --Random Replicator 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I copy/pasted your suggested rewrite. Others may object, we will see. --Random Replicator 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a layman who stumbled across this page and was very confused by the use of the term 'microevolution'. In my admittedly limited experience this term is not widely used in any modern scientific context. All legitimate uses of the word I've seen were either published before WW2, references to those older works, or dismissals of modern pro-ID material. As I understand it the few scientific distinctions made by respectable authors using these terms were never popular or widely accepted, and the terms are now effectively relegated to propaganda tools. I'll remove that paragraph now as it doesn't seem to read well with the references removed, I hope that's acceptable. 124.243.178.110 23:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And my edit has been reverted. Also I moved my text to this section, I feel it fits better here. Further comments on the micro/macro issue? 124.243.178.110 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, 124.243.178.110 (how about logging in with a user name?!) - I'm unsure what you mean. The reference to "microevolution" has been rewritten, largely in response to the concerns you raised a few days ago. Are you still unhappy with it? If so, what do you propose? Snalwibma 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware that the terms micro- and macro- evolution are dated terminology. I was flipping through Campbell Biology 6th edition and noted both are discussed as major headings. More specifically, micro defined as variations in frequencies of genes in the gene pool which lead to macro-evolution; defined as more conspicuious changes such as those related to speciation. I think the terms merit attention, even in this introductory article. It is true that many attempt to over-emphasize the difference between the terms when in reality, it is just a matter of time and scale; but that is clearly addressed in Snalwibma's rewrite. From the discussion above, I am uncertain if there is still an objection, but in my opinion Snalwimba captured the essence of the terms in his rewrite most effectively. --Random Replicator 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections

Snalwibma, what is your objection to the correction of the Objections section? For, as it stands it makes a straw man out of those who hold to creation on the basis of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatKingSmurf (talk • contribs)

-I recently reverted a change to the objections section. It was petty heavy with weasel words and wasn't factual. I will, of course, welcome any debate to improve the article.--NeoNerd 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi NeoNerd - I think you might have your lines crossed. I made exactly the same change as you did, and for apparently much the same reasons!My objections to the change introduced by RatKingSmurf are:

  1. This is an introductory article, not the place for detailed discussion of the niceties of microevolution and macroevolution.
  2. The edit is fundamentally misleading in suggesting (or implying by the use of weasel words) that there is debate among scientists about the overall thrust of evolutionary theory. In fact there is debate about some details (and some of this is already covered in the article), but no serious debate about the overall theory.
  3. A fair summary (and that is all that is required here) is that there are some religious objections to the theory of evolution - and that is what the exisitng, consensus-derived text says.
  4. There is already a link to the main article on Creation-evolution controversy, and that's where the detailed material belongs.

I could pick more holes in the RatKingSmurf version, but I think these four points more or less sum it up. Snalwibma 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed... Oh well, I am in complete agreeance (sp?) with you, so never mind my ramblings.--NeoNerd 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I now realise that the first comment here wasn't from you! Snalwibma 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree, too. Just so consensus is clearly established. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it!--NeoNerd 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Smalwibma, I'm sorry I don't have much time to debate with you; anyway, you are already convinced of your own deception. But know this though, you will find out that you are wrong, not only with regard to the reality of the present debate concerning evolution, but indeed with regard to the truth of the same. I hope you come to know that you are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatKingSmurf (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks, RKS. I see you are also too busy to sign your contributions! I will make no further comment on your POV-pushing changes to the article. Snalwibma 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of deception; I attended a seminar by a man named Ken Ham. Does he not realize that intelligent people will see through his corruption of science; and thus he only cast a shadow of doubt over his religious/moral message. Bad call when you attempt to turn the bible into a science text; not going to save any souls that way. Sorry RAT, the earth is not flat nor the center of the universe, despite the fact that people who rejected such a notion were told that they would burn in hell. The same will hold true for evolution. Sorry. --Random Replicator 02:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I was thinking some of the early discussions could be archived. Most of it dealt with "start-up" issues. It is also a long scroll to the bottom. Maybe through February to the topic "Viable". I do not know how to Archive and I would hate to delete anything in my experimentation. :( --Random Replicator 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Done - I hope satisfactorily. Had to go and learn how to do it! I have created an archive for all the start-up discussions (December 2006), then another covering Jan-Feb 2007. Snalwibma 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

Pasted from above; some excellent suggestions by Merzul that we could perhaps consider. Feel free to comment within the text below as I have done; sort of a check off sheet. --Random Replicator 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

1) The lead is currently a simplified overview of evolution, and so it doesn't do justice to what is covered in this article. I really liked the population genetics section, and I think this article should start in a similar way giving the complicated definition, and promise that it will be explained. The lead can then continue as it is now, or be subtitled "A simple overview" with the lead paragraph instead following more closely what this article is about.

2) Should there perhaps be a forward link to the species section in the Darwin section to indicate the precise definition will be discussed.

3) What exactly do you mean by "sexual reproduction works by the mixing of separate factors (genes)", perhaps instead "separate", one can use "underlying factors" or what is the meaning of separate here? This could perhaps be explained by expanding what was the previous theory: what does it mean to think that heredity works "by the blending of inherited characters"

Rewrite in place and available for edit" --Random Replicator 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

3) Could the sentence "frequencies of alleles in a population’s gene pool will not change over time unless acted upon by forces other than" be rephrased to avoid a triple negation. The "other than" can easily be missed. --Random Replicator 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Bold to "other than". The current phrasing for the Hardy Weinberg used here is almost iconic; I hate to tweak it here. --Random Replicator 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

4) These short footnotes, 4 and 5, could probably be written out in the text.

Defined terms in text thus removing footnotes .... but lost the numbers on my screen that preceeded each. 1) and 2) not sure why but someone will fix it .... right.--Random Replicator 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

5) "For this equilibrium to persist, the following conditions must be met" I'm assuming that with the exception of random mate selection, these conditions map directly into the four evolutionary forces. If this relationship could be more explicit, I think it would be a good thing.

Maybe addressed with (no evolution). At least it increased clarity, may need more however.--Random Replicator 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

6) The section ends with this process being called microevolution, whenever you see micro, you wonder what about macro. Here I understand some people think macro is micro and others don't agree, and you consider this outside the scope of this article perhaps, but I don't. I was immediately annoyed by the rude disrespect for symmetry to leave the (what is macroevolution then) completely unanswered.

Resolved in prior discussion and rewrite. Defined both terms and de-emphasized the significance and difference.--Random Replicator 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

7) Evidence for evolution. The Bible reference I don't think is needed, already says the view was supported by current theology.

Deleted the bible reference. I am inclined to agree and see no need to introduce religious reference "antagonism" not really necessary to accomplish goal.--Random Replicator 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

8) Comparative anatomy while starting out strong, loses focus near the end: "A common misconception is that organisms re-enact their evolutionary history during fetal development." What is the relationship between this misconception and evidence for evolution? Ah, perhaps the point here is to clarify that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is not the evidence, as some creationist booklets seem to think.

9) Vestigial structures and convergent evolution perhaps deserve sub-sub-headings?

This is a formating issue. I always screw up the format. If someone with skills wishes to play with the idea of sub-sub headings... --Random Replicator 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Done --Random Replicator 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

10) Artificial selection. The first paragraph should expand what artificial selection means, specifically that it results in certain traits being preferred over others, and so is related to evolution.

Expanded on the concept in hopes of addressing this problem. --Random Replicator 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

11) Molecular biology. This has been simplified in a way that I don't see this proving evolution very much. I think this needs some substantiation.

Expanded in hopes of addressing the problem noted here. --Random Replicator 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

12) The species section starts a bit disruptively, it is unclear what it is doing there. I'm not sure where this section should be placed, or perhaps it simply requires a better intro.

Introductory sentence added, as discussed below. --Snalwibma 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

13) I don't like the misconception section. Things like "Evolution is a theory like the theory of gravity" should be made clear by this article presenting as much evidence in an understandable form. I would drop the entire misconception section, putting the useful information in the article, e.g. That evolution has no goal and no direction can be pointed out at the vestigial structure section. Many of them can be joined into the next section

This modification will require much thought ... --Random Replicator 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I think the "misconceptions" section is really useful, and I'd be sorry to see it go. Yes, it all should be covered in the text of the article above - but it has a function of its own, and serves as a useful checklist of points to remember. Maybe the real problem is just the title, which is too much of a controversy-magnet. So here's an idea. How about simply calling it something different - instead of "Common misconceptions", perhaps turn it into part of the "Summary" (as a subsection of the summary, placed after the existing summary text, and maybe with a bit of rewriting here and there), and call it something like "Key points" or "Points to remember". Snalwibma 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Done as you suggest here! --Random Replicator 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

14) Merge the short objection section with the "evolution and culture" into something like "evolution and society".

I am leaning toward deletion of both. Neither contribute to an understanding of the process of evolution. There is no shortage of articles in Wikipedia on the debate of perspectives. The quote section never really expanded beyond the couple that are their now. Thoughts? --Random Replicator 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I also am leaning this way. Even though it is quite a handy little list, it might in fact be better to ensure that the points at issue are dealt with within the logical flow of the article, and then delete this section. It does tend to act as a bit of a creationist-magnet, and is probably the section of the article most "under attack"! Maybe its best function, right now, would be to act as a checklist of things that need addressing within the article. Merging "objections" and "evolution and culture" seems a neat idea, too. Snalwibma 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the objections ... such a brief section that essentially contributed nothing to understanding evolution. Was truly a creastionist-magnet ad nothing more. Also, deleted evolution in culture. Excellent quotes, gave a somewhat ecletic feel to the article. --Random Replicator 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mendel Rewrite Copy/pasted from above

I moved it down here. Is that legal? Did not want to crowd my to do list. Now deleted from above , so this is the only location for discussion of the Mendel section.

Proposed rewrite: To address Merzul's list and an attempt to "squeeze" in LaMarck's acquired traits.--Random Replicator 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Darwin’s theory of natural selection laid the groundwork for evolutionary theory, although he lacked an accurate explanation for the source of the variations within the population. Darwin, as did his predecessor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment. For example, giraffes stretching for leaves on higher branches would produce offspring with longer necks. This misconception, known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics, has been shown to be incorrect. It was the emergence of the field of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), that provided the missing information necessary to help explain the emergence of new traits in the offspring. Mendel’s experiments with breeding pea plants led him to realize that heredity in sexual reproduction works by reshuffling and recombining factors (genes) during sexual reproduction. This recombination of genes in the offspring leads to variations, ensuring that no two individuals would be exact copies. The merging of Darwin's theory with an understanding of heredity led to the birth of the field of science called "population genetics".

  • Hmmm. I like the idea of finding space for a mention of Lamarck. But I'm a little concerned about over-complicating it, and your version makes it look as if Darwin believed in the heritability of acquired characteristics. My suggestion:
Darwin’s theory of natural selection laid the groundwork for evolutionary theory, although he lacked an explanation for the source of the variations within the population. He deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment, but he did not follow his predecessor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in believing that characters acquired in life could be passed on to offspring. It was the emergence of the field of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), that provided the missing information necessary to help explain the emergence of new traits. Mendel’s experiments with breeding pea plants led him to realize that heredity in sexual reproduction works by reshuffling and recombining factors (genes) during sexual reproduction. This recombination of genes in the offspring leads to variations, ensuring that no two individuals would be exact copies. The merging of Darwin's theory with an understanding of heredity led to the birth of the field of science called "population genetics". --- Snalwibma 10:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought he did "buy into" LaMarckism. This is a copy/paste from the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck article.

"Charles Darwin not only praised Lamarck in the third edition of The Origin of Species for supporting the concept of evolution and bringing it to the attention of others, but also accepted the idea of use and disuse, and developed his theory of pangenesis partially to explain its apparent occurrence. Darwin and many contemporaries also believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, an idea that was much more plausible before the discovery of the cellular mechanisms for genetic transmission."

Guess we better validate one way or the other before we edit. --Random Replicator 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh facts, facts - why let facts get in the way of a good story? Trouble is, as soon as you look into it in any depth, you discover that It's Not Really That Simple. I suppose Darwinism is (these days) distinct from Lamarckism more or less as described in my version - but as to what exactly Darwin himself thought... Maybe one of us had better go and look! A quick googling of "darwin lamarck acquired" produces lots of contradictory information, of course. Maybe there's a way of fudging it with something like "partly accepted Lamarck's suggestion" or "up to a point accepted...". Perhaps best not. Can we even capture and summarise the truth? I'll see what I can find out. Snalwibma 13:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Further thoughts - the version of Lamarck introduced in your rewrite (or indeed mine) is a bit of a caricature. He didn't really propound a theory of the heritability of acquired characteristics so much as accept it as a given (it having been around for centuries). Likewise, Darwin didn't really give it much thought. On reflection, I am not so sure of the wisdom of introducing Lamarck as a kind of straw man in this way - though it is traditional to do so. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say. Meanwhile, I'm off to educate myself some more. Snalwibma 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Darwin’s theory of natural selection laid the groundwork for evolutionary theory, although he lacked an accurate explanation for the source of the variations within the population. Darwin, as did his many of his predecessor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment.Just forget LaMarck completely --Random Replicator 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ummmm I guess that does not resolve the your earlier concern as to whether Darwin accepted "acquired characteritics". LaMArck's real name is too long ... not the point I guess. The significance of Mendel's work is that it eventually discredited the acquired characteristics notion; hence my desire to have it mentioned in some form or fashion here. Also ... get back with me on number 14 on the "List" after you have had time to really "chew on it". That was Filll's section; since he was the heart of this project I would not wish to hit delete to quickly. --Random Replicator 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Could perhaps solve by making it a bit more vague (vaguening it up a bit, as a friend of mine would say) - something like Darwin’s theory of natural selection laid the groundwork for evolutionary theory, although he lacked an accurate explanation for the source of the variations within the population. Darwin, like many of his predecessors including Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment, but early views of evolution tended also to assume that characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its offspring. This misconception was disproved, and a detailed explanation of the basis of heredity was provided, by the emergence of the field of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel... Snalwibma 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from "mendel's contributions"

...heredity in sexual reproduction works by the mixing of separate factors (genes), not by the blending of inherited characters... I have some knowledge of evolutionary basics, but I don't know what this fragment means, particularly the "blending of inherited characters" bit. Joyous! | Talk 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Blending," in this case, meant that, for example, if one were to breed a black horse with a white horse, all of the resultant foals would be gray or piebald. Prior to Mendel, people thought that heritable characteristics always blended together.--Mr Fink 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This sequence is on the above list to "clean-up"; perhaps we need either clarification or a re-write in regard to what blending implies since this is the second guest to review the article that noted some clarity issues. Happy to see that there was not no need to be fixing to meny errers. I actually thought their woiuld be's more. Thank you Joyous for checking on it; please feel free to add it t your watch list; we are still tweaking it so knew errers will sertainly appare. :) --Random Replicator 05:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I guess I agree with removing the "objections to evolution" section and the reordering. I am a bit sad to see the part about human vestigial structures, and of course "my" section including "man is but a monkey shaved" gone. I guess these were not crucial, but I think they make it fun and interesting. That is what attracts students and the general public to an article, I think. If a subject is just bone dry, people lose interest quickly. Just MHO.--Filll 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Deleted my diatribe and moved it to Filll's talk page where it is more appropriate ... if anyone should care?! --Random Replicator 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


'This misconception is known as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.' - Has the writer of this article never heard the term "hyperbole". When you quoted this statement, I think it would have added an ounce of merit if you would have mentioned that Haeckel said this in a direct attack of that thinking. Also, one more point I would like to make; as I read this article, it feels as if you are trying to convince me that evolution is correct. It sounds as more as your point of view on the debate. Stop using phrases that make it look less like a factual article rather than a debate. This article should be used by people to learn evolution, not to determine their opinion of it. It seems as if you think that no one but the few of you accepts it and you feel as though you need to be on a crusade to prove it. Sorry for the ranting.

Do realize that Haekel's idea was, as an organism, for example a human mammal, underwent embryonic development, it went from protist to sponge to chordate to fish to amphibian to non-primate mammal to primate to human. Even though Haekel's idea has been disproven, today, though, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” means that as an organism undergoes embryonic development, the fetus/embryo develops and or acquires features that it shares with related organisms, most of these features being shared with closely related species.--Mr Fink 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Species

12) The species section starts a bit disruptively, it is unclear what it is doing there. I'm not sure where this section should be placed, or perhaps it simply requires a better intro

There could be a need for transistion here. The species section starts rather abruptly. I like what is there (personal bias) but we need a tie in sentence or two or three or ... so we connect species to the process of evolution early into the section. In others words, an open invitation to would be editors to contribute here. --Random Replicator 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is to do so without setting up a creationist-magnet and inviting lots of irrelevant stuff about macro- and microevolution. Maybe, though a little lead-in sentence like "The most obvious result of evolution over a long timescale is the emergence of new species." Snalwibma 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not right. It may not be obvious at all. How about "Given the right circumstances, and enough time, evolution leads to the emergence of new species." And then continue with the existing text. Snalwibma 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That works. Lets give it a day or two and see if anyone objects. --71.77.209.218 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made the change to the article. --Snalwibma 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Darwin section "Over time, helpful genetic variations will accumulate until a new species results." This is the line that would benefit from the "forward link" as sugessted by #2 on the "List". Snalwibma, your thoughts? It is true the the species section will/does address this later in the article. I'm not sure how a forward link is done although I like the idea. It brings the two related sections together by leaping over the material in between. --Random Replicator 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
#1 and #8 on "The List". I hate messing with the intro. It is impossble to make one that captures such a broad topic. The Main Article Evolution page intro will never be stable. I don't think I wrote this one ... it may have been the only thing here when we arrived. If you get bored however tweak away. I not sure about #8 either. I don't know how to say it any differently. I'm thinking the overall article looks good. They were excellent suggestions on the list and I think we fined tuned it a lot. --Random Replicator 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It feels somewhat naked without banners or something at the top of the discussion page to give it an official look. Any suggestions or add ons that we can put up there such as "This article is Godly --- yet covers an ungodly topic so is thus controversial" or whatever? --Random Replicator 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sure we can get banners for it if you really want.--Filll 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review and Introduction to Genetics

Should we request some sort of peer review or something; request for more "list". Is there a stamp of approval we can seek; or am I just getting a big head and we need to leave well enough alone? --Random Replicator 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I really chewing on the Intro to Genetics idea. Summer is now officially here, it it seems like a good rainy day project. I brought home some basic genetic books in case you guys get inspired. I'm going to give this one a rest and let the vandals and fundmentalist edit it from here. Mr. Deity [1]... Filll that was soooo funny.--Random Replicator 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you like the idea of Introduction to Genetics. We could ask to be recognized as a good article. I am not sure we are ready for featured article.--Filll 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just nominated this article to be recognized as a "good article." We will see what happens. I think it might take a couple of weeks to hear back however.--Filll 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha! About time. This is a rather nice complement to the main article, that ideally we should also get to FA - the two complement each other nicely content-wise. Adam Cuerden talk 12:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I reintroduce my "shaved monkeys" now or should I wait until after we get a GA decision?--Filll 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
“ Darwinian Man, though well-behav'd,
At best is only a monkey shav'd!		 ”

The power of Gilbert commands you. Adam Cuerden talk 14:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I replaced it. Hopefully we can enlarge the list.--Filll 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it to a side-box. I think we should probably keep it fairly focused, lest it becomes a trivia section, but as a little side-box, with only quotes from the Victorian period that are still well-known today, it works pretty well. Adam Cuerden talk 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Adam. And I agree that it should be kept short and focused. Victorians only! Maybe the text should indeed say something like "some of the best-known early references..." Snalwibma 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference format

The article currently uses Harvard-style footnotes for references. As the trend for scientific FAs seems to be toward using the {{cite}} format, are there folks here who feel strongly about sticking with the Harvard style? -- MarcoTolo 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This folk here doesn't feel strongly. Consistency and clarity are essential. Sticking to the current footnote/reference format is not. But I hope this is not the thin end of a wedge, and part of a push towards a dramatic increase in the number of references. We really do not need every sentence to be connected umbilically to a citation, as in some (unreadable) articles! For an introductory article like this one, the main supporting reference is the full wikipedia article on Evolution, and anyone interested in following up every detail through a reference trail should be there, not here. </rant> ;-) Snalwibma 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Excessive referencing isn't my intent. I do think the article should provide appropriate refs, but, as an introductory article, I don't think a "ref-per-sentence" is needed. Further, for this type of entry, the references also need to be accessible. My concern over ref style was based on the if-this-article-could-become-FA-material-someday thinking. -- MarcoTolo 15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
My general rule is: cite everything that seems surprising or controversial. Combine refs as needed for clarity: We could easily do something like have a ref tag at the end of each paragraph, and in that tag write
  • Punctuated equilibrium: Person, A., Referencing Wikipedia Articles on Evolution p 129-147
  • Hopeful monsters: Ominous, Ann, Disproven Scientific Theories, p. 5981-3
  • Selfish Genes: Hawkings, D., Mine! All mine!, passim.

Or whatever strikes us as convenient. It needs to be verifiable and well-cited - remember, much of the material in this article isn't in the main article, so we can't depend upon that! But we can combine cites into one however we like, as long as it's reasonable. Adam Cuerden talk 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "Good Article" Nomination

I thought the article was very good, well-written and broad in its coverage, but the fact the the entire article only has one reference prevents me from making it as a good article. I read some of the comments in the talk page pertaining to references and I will try to explain why they are important. Although the main article Evolution is near the featured article level and is very well sourced, it is nonetheless a different article. People that read this article and only it could be skeptical of the information since no refs are given. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more (it says, for example, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I've added the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations List. See WP:UGA for more about that project. Again I would love to make it a GA, but it just doesn't meet the criteria because of the refs. Good luck! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. The article has loads of references, under see also, further reading, external links. This is supposed to be an introductory article. I hope it does not become plagued with fussy citations and footnotes as so many of the wikipedia science articles are. This is, by any objective standards, a Good Article. In fact it explains things much better than the main Evolution article. </rant>. Poujeaux 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 : ( I'm not sure what to cite. To me, by virtue of teaching this topic for so long it appeared to me to be common knowledge. Something on the level of "The mammalian heart has four chambers". Who do you give credit to? Should we shot-gun a few to elevate credibility? I'm not opposed if it will get us the "good seal of approval". This information - nearly every line - can be found in any biology text. I do not want "attempted good article but failed at the top"; thats not the banner I had in mind. If the reference issue is the only problem; then perhaps we should just correct it. "I thought the article was very good, well-written and broad in its coverage" That was a very nice compliment. --Random Replicator 02:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That is unfortunate. I should have asked for a rating I guess instead of having it considered for "good article". I am still fairly new here and there are lots of rules I do not know. I am not sure if we should put a ton of citations in. They do not bother me, but I am not the target audience. What do others think? --Filll 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a way to solve this. We could argue that introductory articles are special cases, and start discussing the GA criteria, arguing for ignoring the rules. Or we could satisfy the critics but do it in a manner that suits the article - and that (IMHO) does not entail lots of line-by-line citing. Look at Adam Cuerden's suggestion above. Perhaps we can pull together a few judiciously chosen "further reading" mini-lists, one for each main section. Absolutely not a citation for every statement, but in the spirit of "if you want to know more about this topic, try the following..." Snalwibma 06:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to reference it. This covers some material not in the main Evolution article, like Hardy-Weinberg. We don't need to over-reference, but we should reference enough for it to be verifiable, keeping the footnotes combined as much as possible. Adam Cuerden talk 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Referencing would be the easier route. We can use the same ones from the main article. Just transfer the most relevant ones to here. Thats not cheating ... is it? We could also seek assistance from the group next door. They have already fought the battle over referencing; they may have the best ones in their inventory. If inadequate referencing is our only sin then we are in a good place. I say grab a few of the better references from next door. For the sections that do not match up (Hardy Weinberg) I'll go out and find some. Should they be accessable on the web or can they simply be journal or book sources? Also, how secondary can they be ... do general text book's count or do we need to cite the original publication? Not to pass the buck; but my knowledge of formating has not improved any. The layout of this article on my student's computers at school looks fabulous. I don't want to screw that up with my lack of skils. So I would rather copy/paste them here (as we did before) and let you guys add them. (Very good, Well written) referencing is a Mickey Mouse challenge--- easy to fix. --Random Replicator 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Ahhh lets just cite our stuff. We can use all German resources.

"von dem britischen Mathematiker G. H. Hardy (* 1877, † 1947) und dem deutschen Biologen W. Weinberg (* 1862, † 1937) 1908 unabhängig voneinander aufgestellte Regel über die Verteilung von Erbmerkmalen in großen Populationen, nach der die ursprünglichen"
Just kidding. More like ...
Statistical inference concerning Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (Discussion papers / Duke University. Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences)by D. V Lindley (Author)
Seriously; the leg work has been done next door, we should just "foot-note" theirs. --Random Replicator 14:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You can use references from the main article so long as you are certain that those sources have the information that you are using them for. Adding the citations probably won't take you very long. Every sentence doesn't need a citation or footnote after it, but ideally every paragraph should and in essence everything that you say should be found in the works you cite. I'm sorry to have dissapointed everyone, but the rules have a sensible basis. At any rate you need not despair: you're article is already very helpful to anyone who reads it, and I'm quite sure the average person doesn't bother to see if it's cited anyways. But keep in mind that Wikipedia is generally not seen as a reliable source of information at the university level and above. By requiring citations for good and better articles, we are trying to change that. Make sure to check out Wikipedia:Citing sources to avoid more problems down the road. I'm sure once the refs are added this article won't need a lot more work to reach Featured Article status. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 14:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


I should also say that books listed in a "Further Reading" section implies that they are not explicitly being referenced in the article. If you would like to use any of the great many books you have listed there for citations, then they should be moved from that section and into "References" or "Notes". Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 14:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a few. I'm trying to use popular works and more chatty descriptions to make this article a bit more friendly, though I've leapt straight to Starr and Taggert when it came to Hardy-Weinberg, as mathematics and popular books don't go well together. Starr and Taggert is one of the clearer textbooks, though. Adam Cuerden talk 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] microevolution/macroevolution

I've cut the discussion of this because it was A. off-topic for the section it was in, and B. Not entirely accurate, or, at least, not very nuanced: Both Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory and Starr and Taggert's Biology note that speciation depends on some things about the population as a whole, like a wide geographic distribution making speciation more likely (due to more chance of one subpopulation diverging). Adam Cuerden talk 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing problem

I tried to add {{evolution4}} and of course the spacing is not good. Anyone want to try to help?--Filll 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it so it's to the left of the overview box, is that what you had in mind? ornis 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes that is closer. I am sure our more artistically inclined people will look at it and decide if this is optimal or not. Thanks.--Filll 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blind Watchmaker

Is it true that the book "The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design" is misleading about genetic drift and should be removed?--Filll 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The matter was discussed; Talk:Evolution. If it's not good enough for the main article, why would it be for a nontechnical version of the article ? - PhDP (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it might not be. I will bow to the experts and consensus. Let them weigh in here and then we will see what we do.--Filll 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What are we waiting ? Nobody ever discussed the inclusion of the book in the first place, we got a lot of books in the further reading section, many of them of relatively low quality, but it's nearly impossible to get them out. It's really nonsense. -PhDP (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If you read below, you will see it was discussed, and there was some disagreement. However, I did remove it.--Filll 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this paragraph too advanced?

The evolution assumes two main contrary aspects – conservation (C) and change (CH). These aspects are alternative: the higher the CH, the lower the C, and vice versa, since their total sum is equal to 1: C + CH = 1. The ratio CH/C thus characterizes the evolutionary plasticity of the system.--Filll 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. If you understand that CH is the negative sum / squared and thus only hypothetically is equal to the inverse ratio of C/1ch-c. Get it Filll; jeez I thought you were smart like that?
Boot the Blind Watchmaker; Dawkins is on my shit-list with his sensationalism over the God Delusion. There are too many in there anyway. I've been waiting for a rainy day to add some the references. We have been in drought in NC ... but awesome beach weather! I was scanning the histoy of the article. Alot of minor edits; mostly did / undid's. I got lost in them; I guess vandalisms rather than serious improvements. I think it is in a good place as it is. I wish they (?) had left the "see also" as three columns, it makes the scroll down too long as it stands. Intimidation factor. I will address the references so we can get good article status; that sounded like the primary barrier; which was just lazy on my part; ironically I'm always hammering my students for not citing their sources. Trust all is well with you? Any new articles? Drunk Bees and the such? I did one thing of merit. I petitioned a photographer to release his photos of the rare Ghost Orchid for wikipedia. Nice of him... I was pretty proud; so now the world can see what the hell they look like!!!! Well off to pack the cooler; got to get ready for another day in the sun ... god teaching is bitch of a job :) --71.77.211.77 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator 02:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) been so long I couldn't remember my password.
Well recently I have been trying really hard to turn homeopathy and related articles into something you can read. I have also been slowly writing short articles for all the towns, villages and hamlets on the Isle of Wight. My impression was that that paragraph did not belong in this article. Ok we can nuke the Dawkins book then. Sounds good. Have fun! --Filll 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Random Replicator: Boot the Blind Watchmaker if you want, but seeing I'm the only one who's been trying to find references of a low enough level (or so it seemed back when I was going through all the books I had and trying desperately to cite up using easy-to-understand books, while everyone else ignored the article for months), I'd really appreciate if you could first find a suitable layman-friendly ref to replace it. Adam Cuerden talk 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


ah ... True, the article has languished a bit since our appeal for good article status. Your efforts are most appreciated. I was actually thinking the issue was over inclusion in "futher reading" didn't realize the text was used as a reference citation. Relucant to challenge anyone who is putting energy into citing the article, such a boring task. Dawkins does write for the masses; regardless of being on my shit-list. He is a bit over-used in the Suggested reading (my fault for that). Sorry Adam ... keep him until someone steps up and finds better ... and cite on. Do you have a long term plan. A certain # or so many per paragraph? It is all rather general knowledge. So just citing for credibility I guess? School starts back in two weeks. I have tons of general science texts; if it still needs citations I'll have better access. When we reach what-ever number or distribution suggested, then perhaps we should resubmit. --Random Replicator 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[unindent] Sorry, I didn't mean to be a bit snappish. I think my goal is just to have "everything covered", with it obvious what is covered by what. But with an introductory article, I don't think we should have more than one or two citations per subject: We're not going into great detail, after all, so it should be reasonable to find a book broad enough to cover everything described in each section. I'd rather use popular works as much as possible, though we may have to use textbooks for the more mathematical parts. (By the way, I have to admit I don't really like Dawkins' writing style much myself - he's annoyingly reductionist and seems highly prone to misrepresent Genetic drift. But, well, he is a good introduction, as far as he goes.) Adam Cuerden talk 06:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linked from "common misconceptions"

Just for info's sake: I just linked this page as a "main" page from the evolution section of List of misconceptions, since the "Key points" here seem to be the best match with the points on that list. If the pros here could also check it over to ensure we've got nothing messed up over on that list, that'd be nice. --DewiMorgan 13:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format

This article contains too many pictures, to the point that the format is difficult to understand. For instance the table of contents is "smooshed" by the picture of the paleontological tree of vertebrates, and the "Evolution portal" blocks the bottom of the "Evolution overview". Wikidudeman (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references

Added a few more references, following the theme set by Adam. Not over technical with a general commentary by the reference itself. This article has been up a while with no major assults. Such stability is a reflection of a good article. If we have enough references ... seems like all major sections are cited. Then I would like to see the banner at the top replaced with good. --Random Replicator 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems there are no objections, so lets ask for another review.--Filll 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
agreed - if citation shortage was the only concern then we should be ok ... we will see. --Random Replicator 03:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this article exist?

Wouldn't it be better to simply have those incapable of understanding the main Evolution article go to the Simple English Wikipedia?

--TotesBoats 11:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before, if you care to look at the archives of this page and the evolution talk page. Nevertheless, Encyclopedia Britannica has 5 or 6 different levels of product. What is wrong with us having 3? Also, Simple Wikipedia's article is much simpler than this one, if you look. This is an intermediate article. This article exists for the same reason that Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, Introduction to entropy, Introduction to general relativity, Introduction to M-theory, Introduction to special relativity and so on exist, as part of the WP effort Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. You want to argue about their existence? Take it up with the policy people. However, I would disagree with you very strongly. You might just as well ask, why do we have different textbooks for children in elementary school, junior high school, high school, college and graduate school?--Filll 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I saw on the candidate page where the article is already under review. I've read the article too many times to be objective; but I truly believe it represents quality. All major concepts have been cited; despite the general knowledge aspect of an introductory article. It has remained very stable ... and we (contributors) know that if it wasn't good, those that contribute to the primary Evolution article would of been on it like wolves on sheep. Other than vandal reversions edits are minimal at this point. As the first (at the top link) to Evolution, a featured article, this really needs to obtain at least "good" status. --Random Replicator 03:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)