Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GA fail

This is an excellent start on what is, in some places of the world, a controversial topic. I'm happy that this page exists (I'm a fan of separating "introduction" and "advanced" pages). I come to this page as an avid reader of popular science books, not as a scientist, so I am, in many ways, your ideal reader. Here are my suggestions for improving the article:

Organization:

  • The "Key points" in the "Summary" are not all covered in the article; in fact, most of them are not. Perhaps a better name for the list would be something like "Common misconceptions". I'm not sure that I think this list is a good idea (particularly since it is so long). There are really important ideas in the list that are not covered in the article, such as the idea of "progress". I would try to integrate the material from this list into the article where appropriate and leave the rest of the "Summary" as a true summary.

Responses from a lay reader regarding content and wording:

  • The lead seems repetitious - the same explanation is repeated twice (once with genes and once without). I'm sure this is actually more precise, but to a lay reader, it simply seems repetitive.
  • The lead does not mention all of the major sections of the article (e.g., evidence for evolution) - it is not a standalone summary of the article. See WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads.
  • In 1809 Lamarck proposed a mechanism of transmutation of species to explain this descent. - This is not explained at all. I was just left hanging. Perhaps define "transmutation of species" in a phrase at least?
  • Under "Some definitions" we read that it would be helpful to know some additional definitions in order to understand the complex definition of evolution. After listing all of the definitions, I think it might be a good idea to rephrase the definition using the words from the newly learned words - it helps readers retain the information and it reminds them why they were reading the list in the first place.
  • To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it might be useful to consider the gene pool of a non-evolving population. - This did not help me much, I'm afraid. I started to get a little bit confused about where the article was going. I wonder if it would be better to present all of the "basic" evolution material up front, especially the evidence, and then present this kind of material.
  • Paleontology, the study of fossils, supports Darwin's original idea that all living creatures are related. Fossils also provide evidence that accumulated changes over long periods have led to the diverse forms of life we see today. - Explain how in a short phrase or sentence in this introductory paragraph.
  • Perhaps the best known of these transitional fossils is Archaeopteryx. - For a lay reader, no fossil is well-known, except perhaps for Lucy.

Some of the language in the article, in an effort to achieve accessibility, has, I think become a little simplistic or vague:

  • EX: This is called natural selection, a major part of evolution. - "major part" is vague - I think we can say "mechanism" or some such word or phrase.
  • EX: Since the beginning of life, evolution has transformed the first species into more and more different species - how about "an increasing number of different species"?
  • EX: The idea of common descent developed in the 18th century - was it a theory yet? (The word "idea" comes up a lot in the article - it is actually better to be more precise, I think.)
  • EX: While on the voyage of the Beagle from 1831 to 1836, Charles Darwin found that fossil species were unexpectedly closely related to modern species of organisms in the same area, and the territory of species suggested that they had spread with changes from nearby species rather than just arising in place. - This is all very vague - what area? "arising in place" doesn't really make sense...
  • EX: In the case of humans, some claim that human embryos pass through amphibian then reptilian stages. - What some?

Layout:

  • I don't know what the page looks like on other browsers, but on mine, the first image is smushed up against the TOC. I wonder if there is a way to fix this, because it makes the page look a little disorganized.
  • Since this is the "introduction to evolution" page for non-scientists, I would start the page with a colorful image. Pander. :)
  • I think that it's great that there are so many images, but the article looks a little cluttered at points (do we need the mice, for example?) and sometimes all of the images line up on one side of the article (e.g., at the end), which is less aesthetically pleasing than a staggered arrangement.
  • The numbered list under "Hardy-Weinberg principle" is oddly smushed up against the moth pictures in my browser. It is hard to tell it is a numbered list at first glance.

I would suggest that a copy editor with some scientific knowledge work on this article. There are some odd shifts in tense, pronoun referent problems, and other small grammatical issues (I have listed some examples below), but I would hesitate to ask someone who is ignorant of the subject matter to edit it!

  • EX: A more sophisticated definition of evolution is "a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool." - more sophisticated than what? comparatives need a comparison :)
  • EX: In a population of mice that inhabit a barn, suppose there are only two variations in the gene controlling fur color. - Start with the "suppose" - you are supposing the population and the barn, too :)
  • EX: Today, the fossil record is more complete, and serves as a chronological record documenting the emergence of new, more complex species from simpler ancestral forms. - repetition of "record"; "more complete" than when? and, can the record actually be more complete? wouldn't it be something like "we have recovered a greater percentange of the fossil record" or something?
  • EX: part of the basis of classifying the vertebrate group (which include humans) - "includes" - "group" is singular
  • EX: Scientists have struggled to find a precise and all-inclusive definition of a species, but the classic definition, used here, was developed by Ernst Mayr (1904-2005). - I'm not sure why there is a "but" here.
  • EX: There is a tremendous amount of evidence that is explained by evolution. - Passive construction is weak and you want this to be a strong statement.
  • Since this is an evolution article and evolution is such a contentious topic in at least one major English-speaking country, I would suggest adding many more citations. (See evolution, for example.) For this same reason, I would make this statement even stronger: The theory of evolution is widely accepted among the scientific community.

Query: "Nature, red in tooth and claw" - from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (1849) - Why is this considered a reference to Darwin, when Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859? Is it a reference to other evolutionary thought, perhaps? (To me, it looks like a reference to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.)

If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is a very helpful, very thorough review! this is what we needed. I really appreciate all the work and care that went into this review. This was a LOT of work to do all this for us. Thank you so much.--Filll 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that you found it helpful. Awadewit | talk 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow indeed... thank you for your willingness to invest the time. Now I have a little sympathy for my kids after I shred their essays. It is clearly not "good". If we should be able to incorporate all the changes, I suggest we skip "good" and go for "featured" status. The worse that could happen is another failed banner to add to the collection at the top! --Random Replicator 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nature Red in Tooth and Claw

Our helpful reviewer is of course quite correct. This poem came out before Darwin made his theory public. However, it was quickly adopted by others as a phrase that might be associated with evolution:

These are just a few of what could be found. The bottom line is, this phrase was seized on by both pro and anti-evolution groups and individuals, and it has become famous.--Filll 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I see. However, the box where the quotation appears has this caption: As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include. Those sentences make it seem like the writers quoted are referencing Darwin, which is not the case with Tennyson. Perhaps these sentences could be reworded? Awadewit | talk 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see how some might think that. Some claim that "survival of the fittest" came before Darwin as well, but I gather another WP editor tried very hard to establish that and is of the opinion it came after Darwin. I am less sure, but maybe. At the very least, we need a more general statement for that little box however.--Filll 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Check off List from suggestions above.

Perhaps strike through as suggestions are incorporated into article. --Random Replicator 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Organization:

* The "Key points" in the "Summary" are not all covered in the article; in fact, most of them are not. Perhaps a better name for the list would be something like "Common misconceptions". I'm not sure that I think this list is a good idea (particularly since it is so long). There are really important ideas in the list that are not covered in the article, such as the idea of "progress". I would try to integrate the material from this list into the article where appropriate and leave the rest of the "Summary" as a true summary.

Note: Keypoints / Misconception have been intregrated!--Random Replicator 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Responses from a lay reader regarding content and wording:

  • The lead seems repetitious - the same explanation is repeated twice (once with genes and once without). I'm sure this is actually more precise, but to a lay reader, it simply seems repetitive.

Note: Find one simplistic yet all inclusive definition for evolution and insert. One that does not require an understanding of gene pools, allelles, the concept of frequency, and populations. It must also fulfill the requirements of simple/understable yet meet the standards for detail required by the science geeks among us. I have noticed that in text the definitions for evolution are layered from general and "redundantly" build to complex. I'm brain dead on this one --- but a different attempt has been posted. --Random Replicator 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead does not mention all of the major sections of the article (e.g., evidence for evolution) - it is not a standalone summary of the article. See WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads.
Note: The new version does a better job of this -- but could be improved with a fresh set of eyes. --Random Replicator 12:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In 1809 Lamarck proposed a mechanism of transmutation of species to explain this descent. - This is not explained at all. I was just left hanging. Perhaps define "transmutation of species" in a phrase at least?
  • Under "Some definitions" we read that it would be helpful to know some additional definitions in order to understand the complex definition of evolution. After listing all of the definitions, I think it might be a good idea to rephrase the definition using the words from the newly learned words - it helps readers retain the information and it reminds them why they were reading the list in the first place.

Note: Problem solved by incorporating the definitions into the text. --Random Replicator 16:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it might be useful to consider the gene pool of a non-evolving population. - This did not help me much, I'm afraid. I started to get a little bit confused about where the article was going. I wonder if it would be better to present all of the "basic" evolution material up front, especially the evidence, and then present this kind of material.

Note: there is no simple version of Hardy-Weinberg. This is about as layman as you can get. I did rephrase the intro lines since it has been criticized before as setting the stage for confusion in other critiques. The location in the article seems reasonable; since H-W theorm is what the evidence is suppose to support. It does not make sense to put it at the end. --Random Replicator 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting moving the entire explanation to the end, not part of it. Perhaps even deleting it? I'm just not sure how much the reader gains from it. What do you want them to get out of this section? Awadewit | talk 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Paleontology, the study of fossils, supports Darwin's original idea that all living creatures are related. Fossils also provide evidence that accumulated changes over long periods have led to the diverse forms of life we see today. - Explain how in a short phrase or sentence in this introductory paragraph.
  • Perhaps the best known of these transitional fossils is Archaeopteryx. - For a lay reader, no fossil is well-known, except perhaps for Lucy.

Some of the language in the article, in an effort to achieve accessibility, has, I think become a little simplistic or vague:

Was this the all of them or did you get tired of typing? That is actually a serious question, nothing intended "between the lines"! --Random Replicator 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I listed the ones that struck me as the most blatant, so I wouldn't say I listed all of them. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: This is called natural selection, a major part of evolution. - "major part" is vague - I think we can say "mechanism" or some such word or phrase.
  • EX: Since the beginning of life, evolution has transformed the first species into more and more different species - how about "an increasing number of different species"?
  • EX: The idea of common descent developed in the 18th century - was it a theory yet? (The word "idea" comes up a lot in the article - it is actually better to be more precise, I think.)
  • EX: While on the voyage of the Beagle from 1831 to 1836, Charles Darwin found that fossil species were unexpectedly closely related to modern species of organisms in the same area, and the territory of species suggested that they had spread with changes from nearby species rather than just arising in place. - This is all very vague - what area? "arising in place" doesn't really make sense... :
  • EX: In the case of humans, some claim that human embryos pass through amphibian then reptilian stages. - What some?
Layout:
Note: I don't have the time to learn formating. Someone please address these issues. Perhaps a concesus should be reached on what pictures should go or stay and what colorful intro picture at the top is worthy of this godly article. --Random Replicator 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the page looks like on other browsers, but on mine, the first image is smushed up against the TOC. I wonder if there is a way to fix this, because it makes the page look a little disorganized. :Since this is the "introduction to evolution" page for non-scientists, I would start the page with a colorful image. Pander. :)
I think that it's great that there are so many images, but the article looks a little cluttered at points (do we need the mice, for example?) and sometimes all of the images line up on one side of the article (e.g., at the end), which is less aesthetically pleasing than a staggered arrangement. :The numbered list under "Hardy-Weinberg principle" is oddly smushed up against the moth pictures in my browser. It is hard to tell it is a numbered list at first glance.
Note: Layout is too some degree a matter of personal preference. The image blocking text has been resolved. As to the number and placement; everyone has an opinion; however, there is some concensus that what we have is adequate to the task. --Random Replicator 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of the revisions I made. I think that it improves the readability of the text. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that a copy editor with some scientific knowledge work on this article. There are some odd shifts in tense, pronoun referent problems, and other small grammatical issues (I have listed some examples below), but I would hesitate to ask someone who is ignorant of the subject matter to edit it!
  • EX: A more sophisticated definition of evolution is "a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool." - more sophisticated than what? comparatives need a comparison :)
  • :EX: In a population of mice that inhabit a barn, suppose there are only two variations in the gene controlling fur color. - Start with the "suppose" - you are supposing the population and the barn, too :)
  • EX: Today, the fossil record is more complete, and serves as a chronological record documenting the emergence of new, more complex species from simpler ancestral forms. - repetition of "record"; "more complete" than when? and, can the record actually be more complete? wouldn't it be something like "we have recovered a greater percentange of the fossil record" or something?
  • EX: part of the basis of classifying the vertebrate group (which include humans) - "includes" - "group" is singular
  • EX: Scientists have struggled to find a precise and all-inclusive definition of a species, but the classic definition, used here, was developed by Ernst Mayr (1904-2005). - I'm not sure why there is a "but" here.
  • EX: There is a tremendous amount of evidence that is explained by evolution. - Passive construction is weak and you want this to be a strong statement.
Since this is an evolution article and evolution is such a contentious topic in at least one major English-speaking country, I would suggest adding many more citations. (See evolution, for example.)
Note: This has been discussed many times. I was under the impression that we were to create a simple "general knowledge" version for layman and not to include massive citations. Our goal was to increase readability. I think we actually used readability formulas in the begining. Matters not to me -- but this will require concensus before I began breaking the text with those annoying little numbers! --Random Replicator 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought perhaps it might become an issue at FAC as well, if you are planning to go there. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • For this same reason, I would make this statement even stronger: The theory of evolution is widely accepted among the scientific community.
  • Query: "Nature, red in tooth and claw" - from Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (1849) - Why is this considered a reference to Darwin, when Darwin's Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859? Is it a reference to other evolutionary thought, perhaps? (To me, it looks like a reference to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.)

[edit] Re-write of the Introduction section.

This eliminates the redundancy ... of that I am sure. As to providing a glimps in the introduction of the upcoming content ... very difficult to do when we also need simplicity. But all excuses aside ... here it goes:


Evolution is the process of change that has transformed life on earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes life today. Evolution occurs through changes in genes, the "recipes" for constructing the organism. When an organism reproduces, small random changes in the genes make the offspring different from the parent. Sometimes these changes help the offspring survive to reproduce. When this happens, the genes for the beneficial traits are passed on to the organism's own offspring, becoming more common in the next generation. Genes that do not help organisms reproduce may become rarer or eliminated from the population. This is called natural selection, a primary mechanism driving evolution. Through natural selection, populations of organisms slowly change over time as they adapt to changes in their environments.
The scientific theory of evolution — the explanation for how evolution occurs — states that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor at some point in the distant past. This idea is called common descent. Since the beginning of life, evolution has transformed the first species into an increased number of different species as life has found a variety of ways to survive and flourish. This has resulted in the many diverse forms of life that exist today.
The theory of evolution has itself undergone changes over time. For example, Gregor Mendel’s contributions in the field of genetics resulted in a clear understanding of the source for variations in offspring. The scientific field of population genetics (resulting from the merging of evolution theory and genetics) contributed to the understanding of the mechanisms that allows for the development of new species. Speciation, the origination of new species from ancestral forms, lies at the foundation of the theory’s claim that all organisms are related. Evolution is supported by an immense body of scientific evidence. There is as much or more evidence for evolution as for many other scientific theories. Advancements in the fields of molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy all contribute to an understanding of the evolutionary process.
There is no serious disagreement among biological scientists about the validity of evolution, though some aspects of evolution, such as the mechanisms and processes that drive it, are subject to some professional debate. More than 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support evolution. It is the foundation of the research conducted in all fields of biology.

One goal is to incorporate "key concepts" into the body of the text, so that list at the end disappears. I got a few of them in the intro. I'll leave this here since it is a major rewrite to see if it floats. Thanks --Random Replicator 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the tweaks ... but they do not elimate the redundancy in the two opening paragraps. Can I assume this version was not worthy of a foundtion? Or should I go ahead and insert this so that this can be the subject of future edits? --Random Replicator 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn, didn't notice this on the talk page. This is better than my half-fixed version. Sub it in. Tim Vickers 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, if a bit on the longish side. I will go through it a few more times, and see how it sits with me.--Filll 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if this would fly with the style police, but I would like to see a very short paragraph of maybe 3 sentences or so at the very start of the LEAD describing in very elementary and general terms what evolution is. I want readers to be able to come in quickly, see a quick "definition" almost, and then not feel they have to read further. The present LEAD reads more like an introduction to a book, rather than the LEAD to an encyclopedia article. The WP:MOS might not permit it, but I would like the present LEAD to be in a new section called "introduction", and then a new paragraph be inserted ahead of it as LEAD (some articles do this). Barring this, just a simple paragraph before the current paragraph would help, even at the risk of some duplication. Comments?--Filll 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 ?--Filll I added the reverted version; before I read this. Agreed on the "bookish" nature of the opening line. The problem is I can't think of an all inclusive one line definition that would appease everyone. If we have an intro --- to the intro --- in any form or fashion, it may be viewed as redundant. I would lean toward a powerful, effective, first line definition added to the opening section as it stands. I reviewed numerous source, none seem to be able to define evolution in brief as we need. The other challenge was capturing the major topics in the opening. My attempt seems weak to me. The mickey-mouse changes (numerous as they are) I can attack soon. It is the intro and incorporation of key points that need monitoring. And eventually someone needs to re-write the summary to address the concerns posed by Snalwibma --Random Replicator 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Key points"

Yes, it would be a good idea to integrate "key points" into the body of the text, as said above by Awadewit and Random Replicator. But we must then watch the "Summary" and make sure it repeats a handful of these key points - some of them are really important, and need to be drawn attention to at the end. I am amused by Awadewit's suggestion that the section should be renamed "Common misconceptions". That is exactly what it was once called. It was later semi-integrated into the "Summary", and its title changed, in order to avoid acting as a magnet for controversy - hence its rather semi-detached nature. Not an excuse, but at least an explanation of the current position! Snalwibma 08:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that as well. It is pretty funny about how this evolved. And when they were short bullet points, they were more palatable than in the longer, harder to read form that they have "evolved" into at present. The same is true of the template at the start with the simple description of evolution. People have frantically wanted to include more detail, basically destroying the value of this aid. If people shove too much detail into these, they ruin them.--Filll 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] buffon and lamarck

Do we need to mention them or not in this article?--Filll 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No - they were add ons to clarify that Darwin wasn't first. I re-worded Darwins contributions to eliminate the need for them. I think. --Random Replicator 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think so. We have to remember that this is an introductory article. Any more detail can be left for the more advanced complete, detailed articles. This should just be as bare bones as possible, with only the essentials, to get someone up to speed so they can read the more advanced articles.--Filll 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hardy weinberg

I restated the opening section to imporove clarity. The comcept is challenging. But I stand behind this version as being "reasonably" accessable. It is too important to leave off and too deep to make too simple. If anyone can build a better mouse trap have at it. I also fixed "suppose" I suppose.--Random Replicator 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good so far.--Filll 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I classified this as inaccessible and not that important for understanding the basics of evolution in the main article. It is certainly very important from the academic viewpoint, but I'm surprised people think it is needed in what I thought was a non-technical introduction. Tim Vickers 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It does look a bit odd in an introductory article, but I think it is clear, and works well enough. Snalwibma 09:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit List

I have been very busy on the suggested improvements. Please note the changes as denoted by "strikes" on the edit list above. Some notes have been added as well. Add you own as they apply. Thanks --Random Replicator 13:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key points removed

Should we put these in another article with a link to the appropriate section? I like them, but maybe we slip them somewhere else.--Filll 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore them; perhaps think a little harder on how to incorporate into text here. Could we include a section called "misconceptions" and write it up in paragraph form? List seem to be easy targets for those who critique. This one especially. And to some degree, I agree, if it is key then it should be in the body of the paper. I have actually squeezed several into the text itself. I'll put back them ones that fell prey to the delete botton.--Random Replicator 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I've worked in several more -- a couple fit very nicely. :) --Random Replicator 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done for a while ... I really need to triple check speciation in chichlids /sp? --Random Replicator 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The incorporation of keypoints into the text was such an obvious need. What happen was, we wrote a simple version, then later came up with really good points. Lazy on my part not to work them into the text a long time ago. But I must say, it makes for a very powerful article with them incorporated into the text. I am pleased with the outcome.--Random Replicator 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures and formatting

Having pictures on the left of the article seems to be screwing up the alignment of numbered lists (as well as making the article look rather untidy). I would suggest moving them all to the right margin. Hrafn42 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the suggestion from the G/A critique:
... sometimes all of the images line up on one side of the article (e.g., at the end), which is less aesthetically pleasing than a staggered arrangement.
Personally I have no clue which is better. Although I'm leaning to the scattered approach to break the monotony. Either way, if they are blocking text. someone with skill is welcome to make the necessary changes.--Random Replicator 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I just pitch in here and say, I think there might be a few too many pictures. They clutter the page imo. ornis (t) 14:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the pictures myself, and I think that this sort of article is different than the conventional WP articles. This sort of article is aimed at about the grade 8-10 /13-15 year old reading level. Many people have praised the article and found it easy to read and accessible, and I think the pictures were part of the reason. Look at a textbook for 13-15 year olds; it looks not that different than our present article here.

Some have suggested putting the pictures all on one side. Some have suggested mixing them in, left and right, for variety. I am not sure which is best.--Filll 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well what ever you guys think is best. One suggestion though, to avoid overly large images interfering with the sections that follow, place <br clear=all> at the end of the section containing the image. ornis (t) 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem with a large number of pics (and particularly with short sections) is that the way it is rendered tends to depend very heavily on the resolution that it is being viewed at. I'm viewing on a widescreen monitor, and the pics are tending to leave quite a bit of whitespace at the end of sections. Hrafn42 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See I have the opposite problem, I use an ageing laptop, so I'm pretty much stuck on 1024x768. For me a lot of page are all crammed together, images occluding text, or pushing headings aside. Did you have the white space before I added the breaks, or have I solved my problem at the cost of causing you one? ornis (t) 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Some (at the end of 'The fossil record' & 'Convergent evolution'), but not as much. On both versions I have a very oddly staggered arrangement of a pic of Richard Dawkins, 'Evolution in popular culture' & 'Part of the Biology series on Evolution' -- each forcing the next box further left into the article. Hrafn42 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Those three ( hutton, gould, dawkins ) appear to still be a table, I haven't touched that section. ornis (t) 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to line up the overview box with the contents box & 'Haeckel's Paleontological Tree of Vertebrates'? This would save quite a bit of whitespace at most resolutions. Hrafn42 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go, give me a bit... ornis (t) 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to have to say, no, they can't, at least not at my res. If I line the three elements up horizontally, then there's no room for text, and if vertically... well that's even more whitespace. Frankly I don't think the haeckel diagram needs to be in the lead section. ornis (t) 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, but there never is text horizontally in-line with a TOC anyway. The space to the right of it is whitespace, unless you explicitly tell wikipedia to put boxes there. Hrafn42 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just tried it at 1024x768 (my screen looks very ugly and distorted at that resolution). There would appear to be room to have the TOC, the Haeckel diagram and the overview box in a horizontal row. Hrafn42 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a version with all three lined up. What I see is: contents, haeckel, overview, then below that, the text. ornis (t) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That version looks quite good, although I'd suggest putting the introductory paragraphs before the TOC/Haeckel/Overview, like we do currently (which seems to be possible, given that I was able to do it in a preview-edit). Hrafn42 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution, cross-posted from ornis' page

Introduction to Evolution A much better layout. Would you please monitor the page and make adjustments as needed?! We might substitute a few soon; the mice and perhaps the dogs to something less fringe to the topic. Thanks again--Random Replicator 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But I love the dogs and the mice! Well...if consensus is to remove them...I guess...--Filll 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I like them too. I know I suggested removing some pics, but to be truthful, I couldn't actually point to any I think should go. ornis (t) 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
They are cute; but really do not relay any information other than to people who might not be aware of what a black or white mouse looks like. The dogs on the other hand provide a dramatic example of the effects of artificial selection. I just wish it was less busy ... more dog and less backgound. I have been scouring the internet, legal pictures are as rare as hen's teeth. Also, although not ordained by God, there was the suggestion for a dramatic / colorful intro picture at the top. Any ideas before we (ahhh you) perfect the format? --Random Replicator 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There are some nice PD colour plates here perhaps we could crop down one of the finch illustrations, and include it with an explanation of why they're so significant. ornis (t) 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place for misconceptions/summary bullets

I have linked in the list of misconceptions that can be found at

Lets put all the extra bullets that cannot be worked into the text in there so they can still be accessed but will not clutter this article.--Filll 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent --- and I learned something. I've been guilty of stating most mutations are negative. I'll never be teacher of the year spreading such misconceptions :(--Random Replicator 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Italic text== Format ==

Format guru's

On a 21" wide screen I have about an 8 line - gap between the heading Post Zygotic Barriers and the following text (Postzygotic barriers occur after fertilization,..)
Then in the last line of that section (Hybrid breakdown - Some hybrids are fertile for a single generation but then become weak or inviable.) there is a similar gap before you start the new section (Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution). I assume it is the mule and the firefly creating the problem. --Random Replicator 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) In retrospect it is the first concern that needs to be address since the text should follow the heading. The second one I struck out as it is prevalent throughtout the document and perhaps can't be addressed on a wide screen and accomadate smaller screens as well?--Random Replicator 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
How does this version look to you? Do you have the same problem? ornis (t) 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is how it looks:
Postzygotic barriers




Reduced hybrid viability - A barrier between species occurs after the formation of the zygote, resulting in incomplete development and death of the offspring.
Reduced hybrid fertility - Even if two different species successfully mate, the offspring produced may be infertile. The mating of horses and donkeys results in reduced hybrid fertility The offspring of a horse and a donkey is either a mule, or a hinny, which are both usually infertile.
Hybrid breakdown - Some hybrids are fertile for a single generation but then become weak or inviable.''


With the mule picture off to the right accounting, I think, for the gap between the section heading and the supporting text.

Ornis, is it even possible to have an optimum display for both wide screen and the older 15" monitors? The format was flawless at work with an older monitor. If it is impossible to be stellar in both worlds ... which display should we optimize, the newer or older versions? Also I noticed the open areas of white (21") are common on all wiki entries with pictures. I like the white between section headings as it makes it look less cluttered. Although it was critized somewhere in a discussion above. None-the-less thanks for your efforts, no doubt with the large volumn of pictures mingled with numerous sections, this project is especially challenging to format! --Random Replicator 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead image

We could perhaps work in the finch image as suggested above as a lead and then explain how they relate to Darwin and evolution. They meet the colorful criteria as well as a legitimate historical connection. However, I don't have a clue which one of those birds is a finch!

But we are targeting High School ... I'm thinking a dinosaur panorama. Nothing screams evolution more than a dinosaur. Dinosaurs are cool! I found one artist page [[1]] that is phenomenal. I'm not too proud to beg. Karen Carr is heavily involved in education, she may be willing to part with something? Should I give it a try? The odds are slim; but I did get permission on a rare orchid picture so you never know. --Random Replicator 13:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Let's give it a try. She has fantastic art! Make sure she knows she will be heavily credited as the creator with a link back to her site etc.--Filll 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I made the plea! --Random Replicator 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Could someone archive everything above GA fail ( --- the second one ---) Christ that's embarrassing --Random Replicator 13:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Filll 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

This article is intended as an generally accessible introduction to the subject. For the main encyclopedia article, please see Evolution.

Should it be "a" instead of "an"? I can find that line in the edit mode ... --Random Replicator 13:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. You have to edit the template, itself. ornis (t) 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lifeforms one word or two as in "Evolution does not necessarily make lifeforms more advanced,..." --Random Replicator 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what's more correct, my inclination would be two words hyphenated (life-forms). ornis (t) 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable compromise .... went with life-forms. --Random Replicator 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

May need format adjust in population genetics --- I incorporated all the definitions into the text (seemed more encylopedic) so it left a sea of white around the moth pictures. --Random Replicator 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've arranged the moths, one on either side of the text. ornis (t) 06:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually - very cool. --Random Replicator 12:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The mice are blocking the number list on a "21" monitor. --Random Replicator 12:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Picture

I had suggested a dinosaur panorama at the top to capture the teenage reader. With that desire, I went to an artist web site. Karen Carr's art [2] is incredible. So I inquired / begged:

Response:

I would be delighted for you to use my images in the manner described, and I am very familiar with Wikipedia's use and typical copyright licenses... so yes! Please do. Please let me know if I can help in any way!

Best regards Karen


We are working out the details.  :) --Random Replicator 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Now if I can get Gary Larson to part with an image for "evoultion in popular cultures"! Not likely! --Random Replicator 12:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Running out of ink.

I need to go back and develop some sense of conformity in the "citations - notes". I'll likely do that tonight when I don't have to fight over computer time. I'm not done yet --- so hold back on any harsh criticism until I drop the flag please. --Random Replicator 23:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You have made a great deal of progress. I applaud you!--Filll 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also list

Should it be two or three columns? Should it be pared down?--Filll 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with three columns & the number, but if it gets any larger (and I suspect it will, given the inter-relatedness of evolution), then a degree of categorisation may be useful. Hrafn42 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time it was three. For some reason it was changed to one. Way too much white to the right with one, and makes the article seem longer than it actually is. I vote three. --Random Replicator 11:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was experimenting with the template:

For more details on this topic, see Charles Darwin and Natural Selection.

which can be placed at the top of each major heading. Actually I was doing it --- then realized such a change in format is not my call. But it would get rid of the see also section at the bottom; compressing the article a bit and give it a sharper edge. Thoughts?--Random Replicator 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it ---- but I did save the html for that section if we want to put it back. I like the new format; perhaps there may be other "For more details on this topic, see... to add." This way there at the section of interest; and we avoid the list intimidation. --Random Replicator 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I also "stole" the template at the bottom from our neighbors. --Random Replicator 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The "see also" link I would like to see retained is the one to the Simple Wikipedia article on evolution.--Filll 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We should incorporate that at the top the way the main article is linked.
*Article on evolution from the Simple English edition of Wikipedia - a brief account in simple English
Then in the future... dress that entry up some.

Can someone do that? --Random Replicator 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Better there --- don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So What now?

My ink pen is dry. --Random Replicator 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you go through the entire list? If so, maybe we should proof read it a couple of times, and have a few friends read it, then try again. --Filll 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try dipping my nib for a bit. Tim Vickers 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I crossed off the list as I went --- it is somewhere above along with some notes. All issues were addressed except the mouse blocking the number list. When everyone has a shot at it perhaps we should close with some peer review. I'm not calling for G/A--- I am 0/2. If there are mistakes -- I am blind to them ---. I made a lot of edits without providing explanations --- hope no one took offense. We should contact Snalwibma; he has a lot of time invested as well and might desire input. Have at Tim!!! --Random Replicator 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your excellent work. I have a question about one sentence: "As with all theories, evolution is a well-supported explanation for a given set of data, not a mere hypothesis." I would lose the "As with all theories". For two reasons:

  • Some accepted theories seem well supported right up until they are falsified; and
  • Some theories are not very well supported.

Without the clause, I think your sentence stands. DCDuring 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

True and done thanks. --Random Replicator 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Minor change Tim ... on abiogensis to focus on evolution not explaining life's origins. --Random Replicator 03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
deicates ummmm --Random Replicator 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
subversive humor? "who's this aimed at? post-anal"--Random Replicator 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A major change is that I have cut all discussion of DNA sequence and genetic codes and used vague "similarities" and "differences" instead. This dealt with the problem that most organisms have exactly the same genetic code, they just differ in genetic information. Explaining this in simple terms is difficult without a terminology info-dump, best to just provide the ideas. Tim Vickers 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment of recent edits

I can not help but be of the opinion, at least at some personal level of consciousness, that the shaking of the evolutionary tree in effort to remove some of the, let us say, excess verbiage, only served, at some fundamental level, to remove the overall allure of the article on evolution; which at least, to some degree, most certainly had at the least a diminutive bit of hard edge as a consequence of the descriptive terminology that was most vigilantly crafted into each and every possible sentence that was placed on the page in a way, that without question and to a great deal of certainty, lead to a flow of conceptualization most easily mastered by the somewhat average if not typical student of the high school setting; at least that is the way I perceive it from my own personal sphere of existence.

Actually, stripping down the extra verbiage is a good idea; we may want to have several individuals pursue it with that in mind. When everyone is finished, maybe we can run it through a readability formula to see where it falls. The passage above was rated 20.1 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale. --Random Replicator 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph was calculated at 10.4. Which is right on the target!--Random Replicator 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In the course of my own continuing self-wikification, I visited the What Wikipedia is not article. Because WP is not a blog it is unlikely to have nearly as much personality as many of them do. Because it is not original research it is difficult to insert bold paraphrases and syntheses. I miss those things. But I would really be sad if we didn't have Wikipedia and if we didn't have standards a lot like the ones in effect. And thank goodness for the talk pages. DCDuring 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly did you mean to say above??? AshLin 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
RR will of course correct me if I've missed his meaning, but I believe the first paragraph was intended as a humorous illustration of the problem the recent edits where intended to address. ornis (t) 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea --- they don't get my jokes in class either. Oh well :( --Random Replicator 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm in no position to chastise, so please don't imagine that's what I intended. I took the comment as sincerely, not ironically, wistful. It didn't seem like simple humor. I still feel the impulse to inject more of my unverifiable thoughts, syntheses, and original research into Wikipedia articles. DCDuring 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As do I, which was evident by the edits made by Tim. Most involved removal of the baggage words, a weakness I have in writing style. Sometimes Encylopedias seems almost too sterile; but essential, I guess, for a clear and accurate understanding. I thought my endless sentence was a bit of extreme irony; hopefully Tim will read the second paragraph where I agree to the changes as a positive force or he may not come back to help.--Random Replicator 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
At the current rate of editing, the half-life of this article's text is only 5 weeks. DCDuring 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Spoken like a true scientist; in a few weeks it will cease to exist; or at least be undectable. Perhaps an "under construction flag" is appropriate. I assume once the flurry of interest is over it will stabilize to something more akin to an inert gas.--Random Replicator 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under Construction

I wish i was aware of such a template when I was revamping. I think it has merit; as per discussion by DCDuring At least as long as it is undergoing such dramatic changes. I guess someone will proclaim it stable at some point. And can remove it.--Random Replicator 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the guy who recommended it what the benefits are and whether there are any risks. I'll let you know. DCDuring 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Marck

Darwin, like many of his predecessors including Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment.

LaMarck just seems to be hanging there. If he is just one among many then I guess he is not worthy of bringing up. If he is recognized as the primary force behinds the misconception, then why mention the others. The sentence has no flow.

Darwin, like many of his predecessors, incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment.

or

Darwin, and his predecessor, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment,

or

Your version.--Random Replicator 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, without commenting on whether or not lamarck was a "driving force" behind the misconception that acquired characteristics can be inherited, his name is rather synonymous with the idea. ornis (t) 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Lamarck should stay, as he is so well known as an emblem of that particular misconception, and the article should help the reader place Darwin in relation to Lamarck. How best to do it, though? Maybe delete Lamarck from this sentence and insert him a little later in the paragraph: "Darwin, like many of his predecessors, incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment. Pre-Darwinian views ... (... longer necks). The misconception (inheritance of acquired characteristics, now most strongly associated with the name of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) that body structures ..." Maybe that's a bit convoluted, but I'm sure moving Jean-Baptiste on a sentence or two could do the trick. 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. --24.106.223.131 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Tried your suggestion Snalwibma did I get it right? --Random Replicator 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definitions

This line is thrown out there in the Mendel section.

"A gene is a segment of a DNA molecule on a chromosome that directs the physical development and behavior of the organism."

We have defined gene with two terms (DNA) (Chromosome) that are even less likely known than gene. Suggestions?--Random Replicator 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] format

In the section Species. Just above prezygotic barriers there an essential sentence that leads into that section, but because of formating of headings it seems lost for some reason. --Random Replicator 23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it still there, but without a heading so it seems to part of what's above. It's just a single sentence, isn't it. DCDuring 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this single sentence "Reproductive barriers that prevent interbreeding can be classified as either prezygotic barriers or postzygotic barriers" Seems to be lost above the to "large subheadings it is announcing. My perception perhaps. But it just don't feel right! Not major in the scheme of things - I'm just runin out of things to pick apart. --Random Replicator 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I stuck in another heading. It looks a bit better, but it offends my sense of structure to have only one sub-heading directly under "species". BTW, pre- and post-zygotic seem a smidgeon technical for the title of the sub-heads in this article. DCDuring 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Construction

Other than me "piddling" on it it seems to not be experiencing the mad edits I had expected - so I'm dropping the "under construction". --Random Replicator 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DCDuring, do you are anyone you know have skills in copy/edit? Every time I read it I find another grammatical or spelling error - which means there are likely more; kinda like cockroaches; if you see one there 50 more hiding in the wall. --Random Replicator 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
RR, I don't know of anyone who'd be willing besides me. Give me a little time. Is there any particular time frame to this? DCDuring 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Random - you've done a fantastic job. I too will work my way through the article over the next day or so and apply some insecticide to those cockroaches. Snalwibma 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of evolution

The section entitled "Evidence of evolution" starts with the statement Science has provided a wide range of evidence for evolution, with fossil records being most prominent. In addition, studies of the anatomical and genetic similarities between present-day species serve as additional evidence for evolution. Should this, I wonder, be strengthened a bit? In the laboratory evolution is directly observed, and to refer just to "evidence" as if it were all circumstantial and open to debate is a bit weak! I propose adding a sentence: Laboratory studies of bacteria and viruses (which have very short generation times, and which therefore allow changes to the genome to be tracked over many generations) even allow scientists to make direct observations of evolution in action. Or is this simple truth too hard for some to swallow? Snalwibma 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is now recognized that different types of bacteria can exchange genetic material and that such exchange is frequently the source of apparently new characteristics in a particular strain (e.g., MRSA.) So while this is evidence of a sort it isn't evidence of a process that's sufficiently similar to the process that has led to there being both lions and tigers (for example) it isn't fruitful to cite the bacterial results.
Or maybe I'm wrong, since you'd think that in a laboratory experiment there would be a major effort to insure that only one pure bacterial strain was the subject of the experiment, and it would seem fairly simple, for one-celled organisms, to get a pure strain: start with just one and duplicate and multiply the resultant cells in isolation from all other strains and typs of bacteria (and maybe in a very simple culture medium of chemicals only: no proteins, no possibility of alternate DNA.) If I'm wrong, cross all out that needs be crossed out, with my gleeful thanks.)

Explanations by those who deny evolution of 99%, 98%, 97%, etc. similarity of the genetic makeup of different pairs of species would seem likely to quickly degenerate into a twisted mass of speculative assertions once the species got to be more dissimilar. Not only does evolution easily explain such similarities, it (in its modern form with genetics added) predicts such similarities. Maybe a creationist can somehow cobble together an explanation for DNA similarity between man and monkey but how about man and slime molds? --Minasbeede 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The line you refer to is an introdutory line for the section. I guess I was attempting to avoid too much detail in an opening statement. Later in the section, observed examples of speciation are addressed. However, adding a reference to this in the introduction line seems resemble to me. Whether we are too forceful or not, I'm not sure. Note the comment in one of the following sections about tone and length. The entry does have a much harder edge than when we started. --Random Replicator 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A start at copyediting

I made a first stab at a copyedit of this article. It definitely needs more. Some problems with wording. Punctuation problems. Some paragraphs and sentences that are too long. But it is coming.--Filll 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What evolution is not

Could this benefit (as does Wikipedia) from a listing of what evolution is not?

  • It is not a passing on of traits that arise from any behavior or other act of organisms (no matter how many proto-giraffes strained to reach higher-up leaves that action didn't have any effect on the lengthening of their necks.)
  • It is not a directed process (there is no underlying progressing-to-higher organisms character to evolution. Most of the time the final "highest" organism is regarded as man.)
  • It is not, in any of its steps, certain. If there is a wombat that is the sole one of its species to have inherited a genetic advantage that arose from a mutation that occurred in the DNA of one of its parents it could still be eaten by a predator or squashed by a falling tree before it breeds, preventing the advantage from being passed on. Same for it's offspring. There's a strong randomness to the process.)
  • It does not proceed with mechanical precision. A genetic advantage may have gotten introduced into the gene pool many generations before it becomes an advantage. (Frequently evolution is explained by a mutation creating an advantage in language that implies the mutation happened just at the right time. More likely the mutation occurred in some previous generation and got carried along because the members of the species had sufficient survivability to keep the species from falling extinct.)
  • (This is OR, perhaps) It's not so much "survival if the fittest" as it is "fitness of the survivors." If they survived that might be because of a particular fitness or it might be that, overall, the species didn't face any significant challenges as a species. In general, it isn't possible to give a pat answer to why a species survived or survives other than that it's fit enough to do so under the circumstances. It's when things get tough that "fittest" really starts to matter. It may be true that if there is a predator for a species then "fittest" does become an important factor, at least in regards to determining which members of the species become food for the predator.

What else is it not? (Or is this a bad approach to pursue?) --Minasbeede 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An approach of addressing all the possible misconceptions; bad or good I'm not sure, but it would require a major shift in tone and structure of the article. Maybe a new article called Misconceptions in Evoution would be easier to acheive than rewriting this one.--Random Replicator 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Originally, there was a misconceptions about evolution section in evolution. This was spun off to a separate article on Misconceptions about Evolution. This was then deleted and the material folded into Objections to Evolution. Some material on this topic still exists at

So this idea has had a long and checkered history with a lot of debate. If you have any new material you think is a new misconception, put it in the last article I gave and add it to the list.--Filll 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening too long

It seems to be getting quite lengthy. Too long and it becomes a deterent to even start reading. Also it reads like a defense of evolution rather than a description. Or is defending evolution the goal here? David D. (Talk) 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A comment on the opening. According to the last GA failure, the introduction failed to address all the upcoming components of the article. This article has a lot of components; which lead to a lengthy introduction. There was also disapproval of the misconception list being at the end, as opposed to being incorporated into the text. Of course the misconception list did read like a defense of evoluion; now I guess that tone has been transfered to the article. Another rational for making the failure list was a lack of a strong stance on the theory --- apparently we solved that problem. --Random Replicator 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much of a defensive tone throughout the article. For example, does the summary need to start with the over-wordy "Evolution is a scientific theory that provides a mechanism to account for ..."? Why not simply "Evolution explains ..."? In fact, I'm now about to copy-edit this section, and I think I'll be bold and make this change. Snalwibma 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this will improve the article a lot. I'll help out if time permits. David D. (Talk) 13:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth the readibility score is 12.4 (informative text only) vs. 14.8 for Evolution article. 12th year (high school) vs. appx. 3rd year college, if that is what they mean by grade levels (MS Word's produces readibilty analysis). The Evolution is ridiculus; but this was intended to be their out We didn't quite solve the problem. I think that the score is based on the length of the word and the length of the sentence. A lot of comma's and semicolons instead of breaking the sentences apart. Of course scientific names tend to skew the score up some. And the scores themselve might not mean crap --- I'm no expert here.
Ex. The article is good. Score 3.6
Ex. I think the article has improved a lot. Score 3.7
Ex. The article has improved dramatically since its inception. Score 12.6

I'm sure someone can rage about the inaccuracy of readibilty scores ... please don't. --Random Replicator 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been chewing on the 12.4 number. The Flesch-Kincaid formula is used by textbook companies. I don't want to get too caught up in it but it would be nice if it dropped closer to 10. Please look for any excessively long sentences to see if they can be split apart.
We had piloerection in there? I missed that somehow -some terms you just can't use with high school students irregardless of the meaning. A lot of cockroaches smashed on the floor --- thanks! --Random Replicator 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Outstanding appearance, but I'm sure there'll be some comments, like the first graphic ought to be farther to the right. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to screw up this lovely layout. DCDuring 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know what to do what about the tree of life image. I think it either needs to replace Darwin, the overview, or be deleted. Also, I was thinking the "Evolution portal" should be more prominent, but I'm not sure where to put it at the moment. Awadewit | talk 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if a layout maven were watching. Is there a way to summon layout help or do you have learn and do it yourself? DCDuring 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there are layout mavens. Whenever I get in a wikicode-bind, I ask the help desk. I think, generally, though, layout is something that you have learn yourself by looking at other pages. Awadewit | talk 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things to Do. / From Peer Review Page

Review by Awadewit This article is much better than the last time I read it. Kudos to the editors. My points are mostly regarding prose and organization - they are minor. I hope to see this article promoted through GAC and FAC in the next few months.


Question: When the term is used "For Example" I'm hoping that does not translate to "there are many more --- I just didn't list them" ??? --Random Replicator 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what it means. I didn't think there was a reason to list all of the instances of whatever issue I was pointing out since the editors here are so intelligent. :) Awadewit | talk 04:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thought so. Clearly I've under-estimated the standards for GA status and more importantly over-estimated my own skills in composition. I'll attempt to squash the cockroaches listed below. I do not recommend any future attempts at GA status until someone with skills beyond my on has cleared this entry and recommends the attempt.--Random Replicator 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has different standards for GA. Since I teach composition at a university, I probably have a higher standard for the prose than others, but I don't necessarily think that is bad. Awadewit | talk 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We are fortunate that you have taken an interest in the project. It has made for a much better entry; it is only my ego that has suffered :( --Random Replicator 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Awadewit | talk I didn't realize you were sick --- geez--- this article could be enough to put you over the edge. I truly hope it is nothing serious and I hope you get better soon. You have given us plenty to work on; so take a break ... ok ....--Random Replicator 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Content:

  • EX: Evolution is a well-supported explanation for a given set of data, not a mere hypothesis. - No one has yet said it was a "mere hypothesis" in the article - I wouldn't weaken the statement by introducing this phrase.
  • EX: I would use moths for the entire defintion section - focusing on one example is helpful for those unfamiliar with the material.
  • EX: I still do feel that the Hardy-Weinberg example confuses rather than elucidates the general principles of evolution.
Relocated section so that it preceeds speciation and made yet another attempt to clarify. --Random Replicator 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: These fossils serve as a chronological record, documenting the emergence of new, more complex species from simpler ancestral forms. - Do all fossils document simple to complex, because that sounds like "progress".
Wow shame on us!!!!!--Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In the "descent with modification" section, could you add some detail to the examples? How are forelimbs similar yet different?
  • EX: Perhaps you could explain better why we look to embryonic similarities to classify animals and separate this from the false embryos-renact-evolution theory?
Tried --Random Replicator 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: For example, siblings share the closest relationship possible, and thus have very similar DNA sequences. - wouldn't this be "nearly", since twins, specifically, share the closest?
  • Ex: I would remind the reader what "prezygotic" and "postzygotic" means when those terms reappear as section headings.
Not sure I reminded them --- but did give heads up it was coming? --Random Replicator 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph structure is a weakness of the article.

  • EX: Darwin's explanation of the mechanisms of evolution relies on his theory of natural selection, a theory he presented in the famous text The Origin of Species (published in 1859). The modern theory of natural selection incorporates five basic ideas: - I would put all of the Darwin material in one paragraph and all of the "modern evolution" material in another set of paragraphs.
  • EX: Embryo section could be better divided.
  • EX: In the speciation section, I would begin the third paragraph with "A common criticism".
  • Ex: There are far too many "this" and "these" statements - they are hard to find the referents far and often confuse the prose. Try to reduce the use of "this".

The lead has several in a row.

THIS was indeed a weakness, THESE changes should solve THAT problem. Actually the improvement was dramatic by defining "This" as far as readability goes. I think I got all of THEM. THAT writting tip actually was valuable. Thanks User talk:Awadewit. We should all watch for THEM kind of mistakes in the future. --Random Replicator 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: Genes that do not help organisms reproduce may become rarer or be eliminated from the population. This is called natural selection. - According to the paragraph structure of the lead, natural selection is only the elimination of genes. This does not seem correct and contradicts later information.
  • EX: From this, relationships can be established between present and extinct species, allowing paleontologists to construct family trees that link all life forms.
Got them both. --Random Replicator 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Layout:

I have rearranged the layout a bit. I hope you think it is an improvement. I wasn't sure where to place the tree of life image, but it must be moved as it is just kind of floating around near the top. The article could use a careful copy editor:

  • EX: Natural selection does not involve "progress" towards an ultimate goal; in fact, it is not goal-driven. - unnecessary second clause
  • EX: This reality is evident in the struggles species are currently facing as environments change because of global warming. - wordy and important elements are at end of sentence
Note: Removed it... it ws an after thought add on I made overkill perhaps--Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: In addition, studies of the anatomical and genetic similarities between present-day species serve as additional evidence for evolution. - repetitive sentence
  • EX: Nowadays, many more fossils have been discovered and identified. - "nowadays" is colloquial - use a rough date
At present, ???--Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: The fossil record also provides examples of transitional species that provide evidence of ancestral links between species that exist today - betwen those that exist today and what?
  • EX::Sometimes terms are put into quotation marks and sometimes they are italicized. The style should be consistent across the article.
Note: went with italics --- may still be some quotation formats I missed. --Random Replicator 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: On the other hand, if the organisms are distant relations, these molecules will be more different. - just different; there is no comparison
  • EX: Therefore, this implies that these two species, humans and chimpanzees, share a closer evolutionary relationship as well - Closer than what?
  • EX: The classic definition, used here, was developed by Ernst Mayr (1904-2005). - used here is unnecessary
  • EX: Sentences at the beginning of "Different perspectives" are a bit stubby.
  • The box at the end reads As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include - Please reword this so that the inclusion of the Tennyson quote makes sense. Even if others used the Tennyson quote to refer to evolution, it was not written as a reference to Darwinism, which is what this explanation implies.

I hope this helps. Awadewit | talk 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Introduction_to_evolution"


As I had mentioned above, copy editing is definitely needed. We are very lucky to have our reviewer than we do! I wonder if we will ever get all this little problems out of it? I will have to put my thinking cap on to try to fix the box with the Tennyson quote at the end. Not sure how to word that, to be honest.--Filll 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I could copy edit the article in a few days, if you want. Although my knowledge of evolution is limited to popular science books and high school biology, I think I can do this. For all of my horrific mistakes, there is always "revert". (I have been helping out over at introduction to general relativity as well - there we hash out the changes on the talk page first. That is another option.) If you don't want a layperson doing the copy editing, I totally understand and would not be offended in any way. Awadewit | talk 05:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population Genetics

It has been suggested that we drop Hardy-Weinberg --- which essentially means removing the section on population genetics. It would shorten the article and make it more accessable to the general population. Of course the mice and moths would go with it ....thoughts?--Random Replicator 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is that complicated. I like it. And I find it informative. If people want a really simplified article, they do not have to read so far, or can read the Simple Wikipedia version. This article has to have some meat in it, so that it can be used as a springboard to the main evolution article. What it should be, is a gap-filler between the Simple Wikipedia version and the main evolution article. As such, it should start out very gently (which is what I think we do), and then slowly introduce a few new concepts (again I think we do that) so that the reader is left, possibly after several readings of the entire article, with sufficient understanding to be able to tackle the main article.--Filll 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The effects of gene flow, mutations, population size, etc... are fundamental in understanding evolution at the population level. It is not a topic avoided by general biology text. The mathematical relationship is complicated; but it is not essential to understanding the overall principals. I like the example of the mice - perhaps not Encylopedic; but beneficial in the understanding how the mechanism works. I would be more inclined to agree to moving it after "The evidence for evolution". Hardy-weinberg is the foundation for understanding speciation, so it should preceed that. Perhaps someone can move the population genetics section after evidence; then have a stab at "simplifying it". However, lets wait until others have voiced their views. --Random Replicator 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to clarify the Population Genetics material. It may have transformed into a "bookish style” due to the hypothetical examples. This will go against the grain of some who prefer the encyclopedic style of writing. I justify it because our role is to interpret the "main" article; which gives us more leeway. There is nothing more I can do. Perhaps it should come down to a vote (Keep or Delete) followed by a brief rational (despite wikipedia's policy which discourages voting on issues). --Random Replicator 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rash of edits

My flurry of edits is not an effort to revert the contributions from others since my last flurry of edits. I was attempting to address the list; which has valuable suggestions. It may appear that I am too controlling if you just look at the edit history. Actually, most of the edits by others have remained untouched. It will never reach GA status without the efforts of the communal mind. On that note I saw an offer to copy/edit by Awadewit. That would be greatly appreciated and likely save me hours of smashing cockroachs; especially challenging since my boots are pointed. --Random Replicator 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the best I can do wth the list. I'm done now ... --Random Replicator 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I will copy edit the article in the next few days. Please let me know immediately if I introducing errors. Awadewit | talk 03:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Image

I managed to gain rights of use to two images which should provide an exiciting lead to the Article.


Not sure how to scale them down; the art is the work of Karen Carr a very famous artist of wildlife and natural history art. Shall we work them in to replace the "boring" tree? --Random Replicator 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since this is the "introduction to evolution" page for non-scientists, I would start the page with a colorful image." a prior suggestion by Awadewit. ---- These are in color and nothing says evolution quite like a dinosaur! --Random Replicator 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Very nice, very impressive. --Filll 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Awadewit, do you think we can tie them into the theme of evolution? We can use either or both. The Crinoids have a more "evolution" feel to it. But the dinosaur "panders" to the young. If so, then perhaps you can format them into the lead. --Random Replicator 23:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
When did we lose the Archeopteryx (ahhh) picture
, I rather liked it? --Random Replicator 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If a picture needs to go --- drop Hutton, he creeps me out. --Random Replicator 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Flipper and Jaws are gone too! People do not read national geographic; they just look at the pictures --- how many or too many in an encylopedia?--Random Replicator 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed them (although all of the code for them should still be hidden in the article) because I thought it made the article text harder to read. Pictures should illustrate, not dominate. We are not WorldBook. :) Switch out the images if you must, but I would try to follow the guidelines at WP:MOS#Images and try not to have more than one image per section, unless the section is quite long. Awadewit | talk 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally sort of like World Book for an Introductory article model. Remember the age group and/or education level we are shooting for with this article. We want to make the article accessible to someone who is at the early high school level. Pictures do a great job of making the article less intimidating, and make it seem like there is less text to try to read and comprehend.--Filll 12:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing

  • I am copy editing the article now (I use "copy edit" loosely here). I have just finished the lead. I really think it needs more on evolution itself, no t just the study of evolution. Awadewit | talk 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am also leaving a few notes/questions as internal comments as I am editing. They are best viewed with wikEd. Awadewit | talk 08:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the Question embeded in edits on Darwins view.
---Darwin's first book on evolution did not address the specific question of human evolution: "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history," was all Darwin wrote on the subject. The implications of evolutionary theory were clear to contemporary readers. ---- This is all I can find in regards to the question of Darwins view. He had numerous books; perhaps he addressed human evolution elsewhere. ---"can't get my name to add" Random Replicator
Darwin addressed the question of human evolution in The Descent of Man. It's just been a while since I read it and I didn't want to make any pronouncements. Awadewit | talk 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It reads fine they way you have it now; if you wish to be more direct in the text we can cite The Descent of Man. Your call. RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.211.77 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should cite DM - that section is just unclear in general, I think.
  • The popular press of his day interpreted Darwin's views to mean that humans were descended from monkeys, although the evidence demonstrated that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor. - I altered this sentence, but I'm not sure it is correct, that is why I asked. Was there evidence for this at the time? Awadewit | talk 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Is there any way to salvage the Darwin image; it is the only one on Wikipedia that does not look like he is "pissed off at the world". The Hutton --- portrait can go --- his nose is too big. RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.211.77 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought the tree image was more relevant, but putting Darwin back is fine. I just think that the section should have only one image. (Someone is checking my copy edits, right? I really feel like this page needs a more informed copy editor than myself...) Awadewit | talk 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the return of the Darwin image. Also - am I alone, or are others also having trouble seeing the triceratops picture? Big blank square in my browser. Snalwibma 08:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You are not alone - wikipedia is having massive image problems today. I have had problems across many articles. They are refreshing the cache or something? Anyway, it is not you. Darwin is still there - the code is just hidden. Go ahead and unhide. Awadewit | talk 08:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Darwin's portrait is now back. I think that having a plethora of images is fine (there are already many on this page). The problem is tastefully arranging them so that the text is still easily readable. I was unaware that you were aiming for an early high school audience. Sadly, as a teacher of college freshmen composition, might I offer my opinion, that this page seems aimed more at college non-scientists, based on its vocabulary, syntax, and assumed scientific knowledge? Please see this NSF scientific literacy report for some disheartening facts. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing questions

Ok. As I copy edit, I'm just going to start listing all of my questions here. I hope I am not being a pest. Let me know if I am and I'll stop. Fossils:

  • Science has discovered a wide range of evidence for evolution, with fossil records being the most prominent. - "prominent" is vague - what about something like "most fruitful"? Is that accurate?
Perhaps it is not any more significant than other means: ...wide range of evidence, including the fossil record --- or some such

statement RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See new version. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Paleontology, the study of fossils, supports the idea that all living creatures are related. - Is it really the discipline that supports the idea that all living creatures are related? Isn't something more like the work done by those in the discipline?
Research in the field of Palentology, the study of fossils, supports ... RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you think about a short description of what a fossil is (not the actual bone, for example)?
I don't see a great need--- but I'n not opposed. RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think many people don't really know what fossils are. I won't attempt to write one. It's a suggestion to think about. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The deeper layers, which he conjectured to be older, contained simpler life forms. - Should this not be qualified in some way? This isn't always true, right?
There are exceptions --- to most things. But I'm ok with the way it stands here; if it is not grossly misleading. If it is then we need to re-evaluate; perhaps input from the professionals is need here.RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to check. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Cuvier proposed the idea of catastrophism, which explained the fossil record in the light of the theological views of his time. He proposed that catastrophes had occurred in localized areas throughout the earth’s history. - Such as the Biblical Flood?
I actually mentioned the flood in previous editions --- but I decided to avoid direct challenges to the bible. RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-confrontational approach. Fine with me. Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that it is terribly clear which elements of Cuvier's theory are still accepted and which are not.
Your right. Perhaps a statement: Cuvier's observations validated the idea that species have come and gone throught the ages and there is a general relationship between the the age of the fossil and its relative complexity. His explanation for their disppearance via catostrophic events is not supported today. I'm struggling here!!! RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps: "Cuvier's observations validated extinction and the correlation between a fossil's age and its complexity; however, his theory of catastrophism has been superseded by.....? Awadewit | talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving on to next section.

  • These animals are grouped together because of similarities in morphology that come from common ancestry. - This sentence is buried in the second paragraph on "comparative anatomy" and not explained well. The whole idea of classifying taxonomically needs to be better justified. It is not clear from this paragraph why morphology is related to evolution. The Linnaeus information is a bit distracting.
Delete Linneaus: Go with "Taxonomy is the branch of biology that names and classifies all living things. Scientists use morphological and genetic similarities to assist them in categorizing life forms based on ancestral relationships. That should solve the problem? RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
See what you think. Awadewit | talk 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Such a "design" makes little sense if they are unrelated and uniquely constructed for their particular tasks. The theory of evolution explains these homologous structures: all four animals shared a common ancestor, and each has undergone change over many generations. - Can we say "The theory of evolution explains these homologous structures simply, without recourse to a designer..." - The word "design" has already invoked this problem.
Sure ... guess it was a subliminal shot at creationist... go with your version. RR --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Mine was overt shot at creationists. Let me know which you want. Awadewit | talk 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope my insertions within your text are ok ... was trying to connect the reponse to the new "list". I'm going to take a break as well. Your edits have significantly improved the entry. Many thanks. Perhaps, with time the GA status can be achieved. Random Replicator --- (school's machines will not let me login) --24.106.223.131 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top

Is there a way to combine all the Failed templates and delete templates at the top into a "drop-down menue" show / hide article milestones? If so --- would/could you do it? --Random Replicator 12:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know of one. Sorry. Awadewit | talk 07:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing questions part the second

Starting a new list

  • Such a re-enactment, called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, is not supported by scientific evidence. What does occur, however, is a sequence of similar embryonic stages that exhibit similar traits, not a sequence of adult stages depicting evolution. - I wasn't exactly sure what was supposed to be similar, so I didn't change this. What is similar to what?
Let me try and explain the similarity of forms.
All animals develop a structure known as the blastula during development. It's a hollow ball of cells. Most groups of animals then go on to form three cell layers during the gastrula phase (The others are more primitive and don't fit this description) but there's two ways to do it: The first opening can be the mouth, or it can be the anus. This divides animals into two big groups with common ancestry: Protostomes and deuterostomes. They then reach the pharyngula stage, which is extremely similar in all or almost all organisms within a phylum, e.g. pretty much all vertebrates look very similar at the pharyngula stage, since all vertebrates (actually, all chordates - vertebrata is a subphylum, but let's go with the simpler term) are in the same phylum.
It should probably be noted that, while you can divide animals up into big groups by gastrula, the gastrula forms tend to have a lot of adaptations for the various ways animals provide food for the embryo, so they they don't look very similar, they just have similar movements of cells. However, the pharyngula DOES look quite similar for all (or nearly all) animals within a phylum.
Basically, von Baer was right. Development is marked by increasing differentiation and specialisation from an original simple form, and you can, to some extent, follow the branching path of evolution as development proceeds - but not through the adult forms, but due to the similarity of the undifferentiated embryonic forms of the same stage.
Try Stephen Jay Gould's "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" for a pretty good, not-too-complicated - but very detailed - description. Adam Cuerden talk 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation - I have a dim memory of having learned this once. I tried writing two simple sentences to explain this but failed. Perhaps you could take a stab at it? Awadewit | talk 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Despite the dramatic differences in physical appearance, they share a recent common ancestor. - on dogs - perhaps something like "they share a recent common ancestor from X thousands of years ago."
Interesting: If you wish to work it in.
"Dogs today come in all shapes and sizes, but scientists believe they evolved from just a handful of wolves tamed by humans living in or near China less than 15,000 years ago".

Their findings, reported in the journal Science, point to the existence of probably three founding females - the so-called "Eves" of the dog world.

^ McGourty, Christine (2002-11-22). Origin of dogs traced. BBC News. [3]--Random Replicator 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Now reads: "Despite their dramatically different physical appearance, they and all other dogs evolved from a few wolves domesticated by humans in what is now China fewer than 15,000 years ago."[1]

Taking a little break. Awadewit | talk 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The most widely accepted method of speciation is called allopatric speciation. - "widely accepted" sounds as if other speciation methods are rejected - isn't it that some are more common than others? Awadewit | talk 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Technically, that sentence is correct, but the other ones have been more-or-less demonstrated now. We're in the tail-end of a minor controversy, where the modern view is that all four speciation methods do apply at times, but with a few fuddy-duddies remaining. Adam Cuerden talk 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
      • So sorry - I should have made myself clearer. What I meant was that the sentence sounds like the species themselves are accepting or rejecting the methods, which is of course ridiculous. Something about the wording seemed wrong to me, not about the content. Awadewit | talk 09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hutton's theory suggests that profound geological change is the cumulative product of slow, continuous processes. A similar perspective was adopted for biological changes. - There is no proof of this, then? They just said, "that theory looks right"? Awadewit | talk 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is basically a description of the uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism debate in geology, extremely simplified. As with many such debates, it turned out both were right to some extent. But uniformitarianism is the more generally true (and so has more evidence), but there's clear signs of catastrophism punctuating the periods of gradual, slow, continuous change. See also the punctuated equilibrium debate in biology. Adam Cuerden talk 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, I was really looking at the language. To me, it looked like biologists said "that's a cool theory - let's use that". The phrase "a similar perspective was adopted" does not explain why the perspective was adopted or if there was any evidence for it - it makes biology seem more subjective than it really is (almost as if it has fashions - let's not encourage that view!) Awadewit | talk 09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced and is universally accepted by biological scientists. - I understand the desire to say "universally", but can it actually be proven? What about something like "all practicing"? I don't know! Ah! Awadewit | talk 09:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it's used in every field. How about "universally accepted in all fields of biological research"?
      • Excellent. Perhaps you could add that? Awadewit | talk 09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I finally finished copy editing - sorry it took me so long. I just wanted to be careful. I suggest that someone more knowledgeable than myself rewrite the lead. Currently it is not a summary of the article. Otherwise, I think that the article is much improved. Awadewit | talk 09:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article is much tighter. Thank you for the edits. The introduction reads well; however, it will become bloated again when you attempt to summarize the article and yet maintain the need for accuracy this subject demands. The only issue I have is the "hypothetical" examples I put in to help clarify the population section. Should they be there? I am still leaning toward a need to provide the basis of population genetics (gene flow, genetic drift etc...) and would hate to see the delete key used here; however the examples seem a bit lame and could perhaps be addressed in a different format or dropped altogether . We edged up some as well in readability. Bottom line might be that it is impossible to be simplistic and be accurate. Too many exceptions that need to be addressed in this topic. I will have my general biology students read through it and high-lite descriptive terms they are unfamilar. Articulate --- for example. That might be interesting. Once those issues are cleared up --perhaps another stab at GA. The two banners at the top do not represent the quality of this article at present. --Random Replicator 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
AARGH! The article is not improved. It is getting steadily worse. It is TOO LONG and TOO TECHNICAL. It is supposed to be in INTRODUCTION to evolution, yet we have far too much technical detail and jargon like Such a re-enactment, called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Poujeaux 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Wikipedia article

By the by, I'm doing a push for the simple Wikipedia article, simple:Evolution, to reach Very Good Article status there (Similar to FA here). If anyone can help, please do! =) Adam Cuerden talk 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Main parts that seem to need work are

1. In most living things, parents have more offspring (children) than the food and shelter available where they live can sustain. There will be a 'struggle to survive'. Other possible possible problems might be some of the offspring getting eaten, or only some of them getting to have children.
2. Not all the offspring will be identical.
3. Some of the differences between the offspring can be passed to their children in turn. These are genetic differences.
4. If these genetic differences in some way help the offspring survive and have children, they're more likely have more children. If it hurts their chances, they will probably have fewer or even no children.
5. Since the parents with the helpful genetic differences have more children, more of the children in the next generation have the helpful genetic differences. The parents with the harmful genetic differences may not breed at all, making the harmful genetic differences get lost.
6. After many generations of this, each of the new children will end up with many helpful genetic differences, and few of the harmful ones.


And perhaps the speciation section right at the end. Adam Cuerden talk 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts.--Filll 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's up for voting as a Very Good Article over there. I added some nice, simple references, and I think it has a good chance. Adam Cuerden talk 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Can I assume that any serious efforts for revision are complete; and thus Good Article status is obtainable? Stability - with the typical vandalism is where we're at now.--71.77.211.77 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC) oops not logged in .... Random Replicator--Random Replicator 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question. We had some experts picking over the grammar and language. I have not looked at it since I wanted them to clean it up to their satisfaction first and I did not want to get in the way. If it looks good, and we all agree, then we can try to go for GA again possibly, if everyone thinks it looks reasonable. It would be embarassing to have 3 fails in a row.--Filll 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Filll if we are to the point we are fine tuning captions then I say we are done. After the intensity of the last attempt and edits that followed ---- I'm gonna stick my neck out here a say "thirds the charm". Thoughts .... anyone? --Random Replicator 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. If this isn't a good article, then it beats me what is. My one very small quibble would be that the tone is maybe still a wee bit apologist/defensive, especially in the Summary, as if the aim of the article is to persuade readers to "believe" in something rather than to inform them of a series of established facts. But I don't feel that way strongly enough to go and do anything about it! Snalwibma 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I want to make a couple more passes at it for wikilinks, punctuation, slight wording changes, etc. Then I say, lets give it a third try, as long as all agree. I personally disagree with some of the changes that were made in this last round of changes, but in the interests of getting GA status, I will keep my tongue for the moment.--Filll 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not like my "hypothetical examples" in the Weinberg section. I can't remember why I was compelled to put them there. It seems a bit to text bookish. If you guys agree, then feel free to delete them. --Random Replicator 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to delete --- they have a desperate feel to them. I say lets go for the GA seal of approval --- I'm confident it meets the criteria. --Random Replicator 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I like the hypothetical examples. I think they make it clearer. I suggest we ask our reviewer for her opinion. If you think they break up the flow, maybe we can put them in footnotes?--Filll 13:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the hypothetical examples too. Suggestions for the summary: "survive and thrive" might make more sense, if less alliteration, as "survive and breed".
"There are many misconceptions about evolution, that can lead to unnecessary confusion and objections to the theory of evolution." could perhaps be phrased more positively, suggest "The idea can be hard to grasp, so there are many misconceptions about evolution and for various reasons people raise objections to the theory of evolution."
I like it. I've been bold (but I hope not in the Irish sense of bold). I also like the examples. Snalwibma 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. (which Nature, red in tooth and claw redirects to) was influenced by the ideas of evolution presented in Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation which had been published in 1844.(ref – Josef L. Altholz, Professor of History, University of Minnesota (1976). The Warfare of Conscience with Theology. The Mind and Art of Victorian England. Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. ). Could we briefly make that point in the footnote, and add the reference? ....... dave souza, talk 14:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
We were raked over the coals on the last attempt --- but not left to bleed to death. All the concerns were addressed. I suggest --- like the Niki commercial? "Just Do It!" --Random Replicator 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)