Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Again ---Again

I would like to request that we apply for G/A status. If two more agree, could someone with the skills make it happen? --Random Replicator 14:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's a lot better referenced now. Adam Cuerden talk 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ummm ... have we fallen off the radar or is it still not ready. Its gone through some serious high level revision by some talented editors; no one want to second the notion for a re-try? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is no one prepared to apply for GA status? An enormous amount improvements have followed since the failed attempt. We're down to tweaking insignificant verbage --- such edits at that level could swing back and forth forever. The primary structure is noteworthy; the two failed attempts do not fairly represent the article at present. . If my thinking is wrong, then please state the problems so they can be addressed.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am nervous, but I applied again.--Filll (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Go for FA. This article might have a chance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not without some additional work; see below. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't disgree. It is close especially as it is an introduction to the topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

This is a well-written and long-suffering introductory article. I am happy to pass it to GA status, though there are a number of minor points I would quibble over before it would rise to FA, such as (1) the limited mention of organisms other than animals (read:plants), and (2) the limiting of the Genetic section to Mendel's work, without noting significant later contributors like Morgan and McClintock who paved the way for understanding mutation, a key generator of genetic diversity. In all, it looks as though the problems have been cleared up, and it's nice to be able to pass an article like this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that this recognition comes almost exactly on the article's first birthday: the first version was written by Filll on 8 December 2006. Particular thanks to Filll and Random Replicator - but others as well - for creating this article, and for nursing it through its childhood and sometimes troubled adolescence! So: anyone know anything about plants, or about more recent genetics work? Snalwibma (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A year has past since the three of us burned up a weekend to resolve the issue of complexity that plagued the main article. A fitting birthday present I should say! I hope we managed to fill the gap between the simple and complex version. I see my bias for animals showed through. Needless to say there are numerous examples in the plant world; an easy fix to that problem. I am not sure about Featured Status. There may be a bias against elevating transition articles to such a level. It needs to be FA. Evolution as a topic is under constant criticism from the general public. There is a war being fought in the US public school system over the very nature of science. We as educators of the topic are almost obligated to obtained Featured Article status.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment about FA status; considering the number of 'The Simpsons' episode FA articles — You Only Move Twice, Homer's Phobia, A Streetcar Named Marge — I wouldn't worry about there being a bias against a 'transition' or an 'introduction to ...' article; just call it Evolution: the first season. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Well, now that we have made it to GA, I would love to revisit a couple of our graphs that we had to remove to get here, and get some opinions about how we could mix them in, in a less obtrusive fashion that would not threaten our rating (if it cannot be done, I understand, but I would like to try). I loved our simple "evolution ladder" in the long table we used to have at the top. I even liked the "tree of life". Perhaps if we formatted them correctly, and positioned them more carefully, there could be a place for them. Also, I did not finish my work on wikilinking the citations properly, and I should get off my butt and do that. I wonder a bit about the bullet lists as well, and maybe some of them should be massaged into text.

I think that these introductory articles are tremendously beneficial for the readers, and help the main articles as well so they do not keep getting penalized for being too complicated. Anyone who wants a simpler article can just go to the introductory article (this is what happens to intelligent design all the time,which is I want to see an introductory article there as well). Evolution is still badly misunderstood (in the Islamic World and the US especially, which is sad considering that some of the Islamic scientists were suggesting ideas approaching common descent in the halcyon days of Islamic science centuries before Darwin), and will continue to be a problem (Just look at the recent Christine Comer situation, or the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie, for example, or the new school textbook Explore Evolution). When I first heard what evolution was (from an English teacher actually, in high school), I was shocked that it was so simple and obvious, after all the stink and hubub and controversy about it. And that is the point we have to drive home with this sort of article and others. Evolution is a simple idea, at its root, and easy to understand, and it has lots of evidence behind it. And it really is no threat whatsoever to anyone's religion or faith.

Another thing I would like to do is to write a book review of Joan Roughgarden's book that uses verses from the bible to illustrate and provide evidence for evolution. The people who wrote the bible lived in agrarian societies and observed nature closely. A lot of advice about crops, and flocks, and observations about the animal and plant kingdoms are available in the bible. If studied carefully, these observations actually demonstrate that evolution goes on, and these were recorded in the bible. Professor Roughgarden documents this all nicely in a book. It would be an interesting reference for this article or another, I suspect.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Filll, I'm not sure when the "summation box" disappeared. I agree, it was a very clear summation of the evolutionary process. Stripped of all the necessary supporting evidence; the concept is easy as that graphic showed. I was never "in charge" of graphics; so I'm not sure where it went or how to put it back. I was very disappointed when the "tree" disappeared. Nothing says evolution like The Tree. If not the original, perhaps a different, more colorful one can be located. There were several criticism of our excessive use of graphics. A position on which I disagree. I spent too many hours as a kid just looking at the pictures in World Book Encyclopedia; not to realize our audience will benefit from the visual information. Would you care to reinsert just to see how it effects the overall organization?

The lack of plants is a glaringly obvious problem that I totally over-looked. Are there any specific examples of plant evolution that anyone could suggest that we could work into the document?
Expanding to include other players in the field of genetics? Can we do the name dropping without bogging down in the need to provide overly technical explanations. That has been our biggest challenge. Covering such a huge concept without losing sight of our mission of accuracy, clarity... yet simplicity.
Shall we address the two primary concerns --- no plants --- --- insufficient recognition of other geneticist --- then plead for Featured Status. If Homer can do it --- so can we! --Random Replicator (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For plants, we should mention the origin of modern wheat from wild wheat, domestication of corn, and maybe list a brief pedigree of some orchid cultivar, like the "Dusty Miller" ladyslipper.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


On plants: I am fascinated on how the plants on the two sides of the Great Wall of China are from different but obviously related species. Speciation has occurred since the wall was constructed!--Filll (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have dug through the old versions of the page and found the summary box. I think it is useful, but I can't quite see how to make it fit neatly on the page. Maybe it needs to be turned around so that it's horizontal, which would be more flexible from a layout perspective. No time to try this now - but if anyone wants to copy the box and have a go it's at User:Snalwibma/Introduction to evolution (I thought it would be best not to clog up this talk page with it!). Snalwibma (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a big sea of white between the contents and the side panel about the Evolution/Biology series box. Will the summary box fit there? Also, the china plant could easily replace the fish as an example of observed speciation. Could the wheat be tied into the section on artificial selection.

Filll I read the original article [1] on the great wall study. Apparently, a significant difference in genetic composition as a result of disruption of gene flow. However, I don't understand how such a structure could disrupt wind and/or insect pollination. Am I missing the obvious? Can't a bee just fly over the wall? Too much fermented fruit thus intoxicated -- Bees and toxic chemicals? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) RR

Not being a biologist, I do not know how this happened. Obviously, the barrier was enough to stop them from cross-fertilizing, and then to evolve down different paths. I guess no one knows for sure how it happened, but they can guess. Maybe this disrupted the wind sufficiently (orographic barrier) to cause trouble. I know that a small structure can cause a substantial disruption in air flow and precipitation (measurements of rainfall at sea from ships are quite difficult for that reason). Maybe bees or other pollinators did not feel like attempting to fly over the barrier. Maybe crawling insects did the pollination and they did not feel like crawling over the wall? I am just guessing here. But it is sure field evidence of something, and demonstrates that evolution can happen in a fairly short time, since we know pretty well when the wall was built. And the species on the two sides of the wall before the wall was built were probably the same. If there was bird pollination, it is hard to imagine the birds not flying over. Bugs; well some bugs do not fly that high I guess, although dragonflies are pretty amazing fliers (they migrate for winter).--Filll (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


When formating; does having a wide screen make a difference. If so ... what size screen do you cater to? I want the Summary Box back! I'm seeing a big space which it would fit into nicely on a wide screen. That graphic and many of the others are still visible in edit mode... they were just hidden as alternatives should we reconsider their use. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I like both the summary box and the tree. The tree is chopped in half on my screen at every resolution for some reason however, right now.--Filll (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orchids

Darwin observed in orchids, a relationship that developed with insects that insures successful pollination of the plant. Orchids, he noted, have developed a variety of elaborate structures to attract insects and guarantee that the pollen sticks to their body so that it may be transported to the female flower of another orchid. Despite the appearance of complexity, the flower parts in the orchid are derived from ordinary flower parts that usually perform different functions. Darwin proposed that the orchids do not represent the work of an ideal engineer; but were “rigged” from a pre-existing parts.

Added this to the Darwin section to beef up our weakness on plants. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Also added a very pretty picture for the plant fans. The formating looks great on mine.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Added some corn info under artificial selection. I thought it was rather interesting... 10,000 stored variations as result of mutations -- and I thought there were alot of dog breeds!. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apply for featured status --- I need to know what to fix and will not know until someone shoots it down. The plant bias has been fixed; Thomas is in there --- sorry about Barbara ... but the jumping genes got a bit deep for an intro article. Da gramer and sentence stucture haz ben clened up to the perfection by one hellof an edotor --- no way thats a problm. Helllll no .... unless he/she commmes back agin ---- we'rr good on dat fromt. Images are tight ... we will not pass or fail based on that. Filll pull the trigger --- I dare you!!!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With a citation needed tag added .... maybe not yet! --Random Replicator (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation tag

Figured out the problem: The original was "While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, --- as the citation supported" which was later edited by someone to tone-down the article --- without addressing the citation problem the edit created. I say, put the 99.9 back in and forget the "tone" --Random Replicator (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that definitely fixed the problem. Thanks, AlphaEta 03:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigger pulled

We will see what happens.--Filll (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, the nay sayers will provide constructive criticism. The G/A process really resulted in dramatic improvements. Lately we've been catching minor problems --- if there are major concerns; it would be nice to be able to address them. It has been a challenging process; at least we have gotten beyond the raging debates over content (Amazingly) --- now it most likely is going to be technical issues and formating --- both beyond my skills. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Can anyone correct the template concern that was raised on the featured article discussion page [2]. I'm not sure I understand the problem; much less how to fix it. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added back the tree; which seems to have generated a negative outcome. We have on soooo many occasions be accused of the over-use of images. Let me put it back in hiding; we the general though that it will clean up the clutter. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Wikipedia is strange about citing the obvious but if you state that the sun rises in the east you'd better find four sources: one to reference the sun, two to reference the sphericity of the earth, three to reference the Cartesian compass points, and four to reference the obvious - that the sun rises in the east. I suggest going for over-kill and have an in-line citation for every sentence. Cheers Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

... and thereby destroy the immediacy and readability of what is meant to be an introductory article. Snalwibma (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand and completely agree but if you would like this article to bear the stamp of FA and thereby gain the privilege of appearing on Wikipedia's main page, it is probably unavoidable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Well I will bow to consensus, but I think destroying the article by overciting is a bad bad idea. This is supposed to be an introductory article, and doing what you suggest is just ludicrous, particularly when we have evolution already as an advanced level article.--Filll (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare. Introduction to general relativity is about 70K, and has 48 footnotes, or about 1.46K per cite. This article is about 59K and has 41 footnotes. We have only 1.44K per cite, so relative to another FA introductory article, we have more cites per K of article (this is ignoring the size of the footnotes themselves etc, but gives a rough idea). So we are not particularly undercited at all, by this standard.--Filll (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently apply templates to citations ... which would have been nice to know about ... all need to be the same and by the way there is a template!!! Oh well. I'm not getting much out of this F/A critique so far. Other than the randomness of some citations ... which I am fixing and the profound insight that we need to rewrite cause it sucks ... but they can't help cause they don't speak english so good. I still waiting for the level of critique we got during the GA process.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem to be from the 'other side' but I'm not. I agree with everyone. The comparison to 'Intro to general relativity' is very appropriate but I doubt will have much affect. Obviously, the objections by the other side won't be found at an 'Intro to general relativity' article. One of the complaints has been to the '99.9 % of scientists' quote. This is cited and correct and yet some editors object. I can't help comparing to the observation in Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth' where he points out '100% of peer-reviewed' journal articles do not doubt the existence of global warming and, yet, that obvious truth is a point of contention. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys ... I worked on formating citations all day. The are all consistent ... they may be wrong ... but they are consistently wrong!--Random Replicator (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There are 42 ways of formatting citations, and they're ALL right. I'd a look and you seemed to be using "cite book" etc. but the Wyhe ref differed, so I automatically used this tool to tweak it – and lo and behold, it's not quite what you've been doing. Ooops. Anyway, the tool's great if you've an url or isbn number, or pubmed ref, and want the "cite x". template. Even when using Template:Citation to get linking harvard inline refs to different page numbers, it's a great way to put in the isbn number and get the rest typed ready to put it into another template. Useful in future ;) Feel free to revert the change I made. ... dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) Great work on the citation format, RR... But I must just register a small protest. I think an article in the "Introductions" category should not be overburdened with references. I think it is more appropriate to use other WP articles as the source material, and to refer to those for further details and to back up statements made here. Place the references in the "main" articles, and keep the introductory article uncluttered and easy to read. It's not as if the statements are unreferenced - they are all supported by references in other articles. Perhaps I should take this to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. Snalwibma (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I'm trying to be all things to all people. Feel like a man plugging holes on a sinking ship! However, I did add few cool references, one on flower selection by echolocation in bats! I was trying to find good "readable" secondary sources to cite; such as PBS and National Geographic; thus avoiding the PubMed abstracts that are impossible to understand and which no one can access anything other than an abstract. However, I must confess... I have become somewhat blinded by the Wikipedia star. Thanks for bringing me back to my senses!--Random Replicator (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin and Mendel - organization of these two sections

At present we have a section on Darwin, then a section on Mendel, ending with the comment that "The merging of Darwin's theory with an understanding of heredity led to a clear understanding..." But there are three paragraphs at the end of the Darwin section which anticipate this "merging" (from "It is now known that the variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA..."). I don't think it's right to have DNA etc mentioned before Mendel. I'd like to move these three paragraphs from Darwin to the end of the Mendel section. Or possibly create a new section, after Mendel, and maybe head it "The modern synthesis", using these three paragraphs as its basis, and adding a brief link to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Any thoughts on this, before I decide to be bold? Snalwibma (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. There was a concern raised on the FA commentary about citation of Darwin agreeing with LaMarck. If I remember correctly, the two of us struggled with the phrasing in that section. I know he didn't have an alternative answer to the source of variations; however, did he agree with Darwin did Darwin agree with him and if so is there a source for that to cite? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent link on the 99% number --- should end that discussion. --Random Replicator (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is a good link for the 99% quote. I also agree that a slight rearrangement of the Darwin and Mendel sections, or a new section, seems in order.
An FA review is a long brutal process, and I am amazed when I see people that have done 10 or more of these. They are gluttons for punishment! Or much better at writing than I am ...--Filll (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Awadewit (talk · contribs) who has a very good track record at FA made a comment on her user page just recently about prepping for an FA. Worth reading: see User talk:Awadewit#EG. To quote her "I just don't want you to have a bad FAC experience - they can be very demoralizing." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that is why I'm disappointed to date on the FA attempt. Awadewit invested enormous amounts of energy guiding this article. Her talent was self-evident and her criticism lead to a much, much better entry. To see the statement "This entry is in bad need of copy-editing"; after it has been through such talented scrutiny is at best perplexing. Such vague statements are meaningless. I still waiting for the productive criticism.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>It is a learning experience, for sure. I have watched several FAs now and assisted on a few (evolution, Intelligent design, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and they can be very difficult. I have seen them go on for months, with repeated attempts and immense efforts involved. Evolution is such a controversial topic that it might be more of a target for that very reason.

I have personally focused more on defending a few controversial articles in the creation-evolution controversy, and writing a large number of stubs and other starting articles (over 1000 I think). I should work on bringing a couple of these up to higher quality I guess, at least GA, but I have not done it yet. I have plenty of notes and drafts on assorted rewrites, and I guess I will do that.

Sorry about this drubbing, but it is not unexpected, I am sorry to say. I have seen it several times. So we just have to hang in there!--Filll (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin rejected Lamarckism; I'm not sure if my revised wording is all that great though. He thought that traits were inherent, not acquired; this was indeed one of his great advances in understanding. This is a very important point. He basically knew something akin to genes must exist, but he had absolutely no idea how genetics worked; however, he DID believe that Lamarckism was wrong (as is specifically stated in the source cited for that section!). Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Template

Citation Template for text: Smith, John Maynard (1998). Evolutionary Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850230.  This is way I plugged in for the first reference in the article. Why doesn't the isbn number link????? Randon Replicator --- don't think I'm logged in. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Never Mind ---- I finally figured it out!!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok --- I'm just going to copy paste all the templates into word and do all the citations there ... all these edits to the actual page are ridiculous. I've got a plan ... some templates ... and given some time and I'll clean this bloody mess up :) or go down trying. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC) I have th books "spot on" damn't ISBN ---everything is exactly the same --- everything is validated and I'm am pretty damn confident they are no format issues. I have the template for the http crap which is at present all over the place ... give a few hours.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have completed through ref 19 on the http sources and have done all the books. Thanks for the tool link to the templates. I see no problems with formating so maybe that issue will be off the table when I finish the rest of them. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Format for citation problem has been resolved. If someone could scan for any sentence shifting or weird outcomes of the heavy editing I had to do! Thank you--71.77.211.77 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaMarck

A rather harsh criticism on the F/A discussion page about our paragraph on Darwin and LaMarck; casting doubt on our competence and in general stating that many errors will no doubt be discovered.

"I had to fix a major factual error (Darwin rejected Lamarckism; this was part of his major leap in understanding, and yet the article incorrectly asserted that he embraced it, then sourced it to a source which specifically says he rejected it) and I'm sure there are others in there."

This is the information that is directly copied from the source that we cited:
"It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection." Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned -- but until the rediscovery of Mendel's laws at the beginning of the twentieth century, no one understood the mechanisms of heredity, and Lamarckian inheritance was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
It seems to me to directly state that Darwin'; at least to some extent; accepted LaMarcks view on Acquired traits.Either way, it has been rewritten by our critic.--Random Replicator (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The preceding part (which you omitted) stated explicitly that he tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, yet the article claimed that he SUPPORTED that theory! That's a direct contradiction with the source. If you actually read The Origin of Species (by means of natural selection) you'll find that the book refutes Lamarckian ideas. Indeed, on that section itself, if you were to read that entire section, his implication is that this reduction from disuse is -caused- by natural selection. Indeed, the chapter the quoted section is from is called the Laws of Variation, wherein he attempts to explain how certain traits have arisen. I think it does Darwin a disservice to quote this as support for Lamarckian ideas; indeed, in the previous section he explictly rejects such reasoning, pointing out shells of animals being more brightly colored in warmer waters as a result of them being in warmer waters rather than as a result of inherent variation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the complete sentence:"It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution." To state that he rejected LaMarck is incorrect. Because he had no alternative explanation to the source of the variation; he eventually fell prey to the same mis-conception. Our original entry is far from incorrect as you suggest; failure to mention that IN THE END he agreed with LaMarck is giving far more credit to Darwin than he earned and is misleading at best. To state that we are clueless and completely inaccurate is overstating your position. Your attack as an oppose over-states the level of inaccuracy and would have best been discussed here rather than the FA commentary page.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but it is my impression that Darwin did not attack Lamarckism throughout his Origin of the Species. That is the first I have ever heard such a thing. Wow.--Filll (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh… nothing like a hot shower to calm the soul. My frustrations and thus tone, have nothing to do with LaMarck. This entry was spawned by consensus by “the group” at the main article. I have pleaded for support from those far more knowledgeable on Evolution than myself. On several occasion, I have requested peer review and close monitoring for accuracy. Prior to GA attempt we initiated a formal peer review. During our hunt for G/A status I again sought for input from “the group” for accuracy. My disappoint lies in the fact that you Titanium Dragon are a member of “the group”; one who frequently contributes to discussion on the Evolution page and thus one I would have bowed to as an authority on the topic. I have addressed every concern that has been raised on this discussion page; from content, to the all important placement of the periods, semicolons and apostrophes. To have you swoop in on the F/A page and prophesize that this article is likely riddle with errors and is poorly written is at best perplexing to me. What the hell are we doing editing an evolution article on Christmas Day ... that's not gonna help our case at the pearly gates... Merry Christmas! --Random Replicator (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I'll start with these. I don't make shit up. I really don't like the commentary left on the FA page.


[3]

Ironically, as it was what he would become famous for, Lamarck attached little importance to the inheritance of acquired characteristics; that was just an assumption. His emphasis was upon the acquisition of characteristics, which is not now seriously disputed in principle, rather than their inheritability, which is. It was an assumption which was made by every evolutionist until Darwin's death. Even Darwin believed in Lamarckian inheritance, though he naturally chose to highlight his differing views. Neo-Darwinists have always chosen to overlook that fact. After Darwin's death, his doctrine (though not his books) was censored in respect of Lamarckian inheritance, preparing the ground for a major battle with the anti-Darwinian Lamarckists.

[4]

Darwin not only praised Lamarck in the third edition of The Origin of Species for supporting the concept of evolution and bringing it to the attention of others, but also accepted the idea of use and disuse, and developed his theory of pangenesis partially to explain its apparent occurrence. Darwin and many contemporaries also believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, an idea that was much more plausible before the discovery of the cellular mechanisms for genetic transmission. (Darwin, incidentally, acknowledged his theory would remain somewhat incomplete if the mechanism for inheritance could not be discovered.)

[5] Lamarck held that there were two causes of evolutionary change: a drive towards perfection, and a capacity of organisms to react to the environment and adapt to the needs of the present situation. Mayr says that Lamarck was neither a vitalist nor a teleologist, meaning that he neither held that life was a mysterious non-physical force, nor that it had any goal or direction, contrary to later popular misconceptions. Instead, he saw the environment as the driving force of evolution (unlike Darwin, who considered that the environment sorted out the end results of natural variation). Lamarck also held that organs were strengthened in the way they were inherited through use, and weakened through disuse (a view that Darwin also accepted).

This one was especially insightful

[6]

More confusion is sown when schoolbooks purport to explain why the mythical contest between Lamarck and Darwin was decided in Darwin's favor. Here the textbook-writers tell fictitious stories about "tests" that supposedly have refuted Lamarck's "theory." In reality, those "tests" have been directed not at Lamarck's particular claims but at the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics -- an idea that, as I have said, was held by Lamarck and Darwin alike, and by most of their scientific contemporaries.

Al All of these misrepresentations of Lamarck form part of a bigger folly: Textbooks pit Lamarck against Darwin in a mythical contest from which Darwin emerges victorious. To perpetuate that myth, the textbook-writers lead students to believe that Lamarck embraced the inheritance of acquired characteristics, that Darwin rejected it, and that this was the crucial difference between the two men's ideas about evolution. None of that is true. First, Lamarck adopted the inheritance of acquired characteristics as an assumption; he needed that assumption to make some of his imagined mechanisms work, but it was an assumption about heredity, not about evolution. Second, Darwin accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics, just as Lamarck did, and Darwin even thought that there was some experimental evidence to support it. In a book published in 1868, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Darwin presented the "pangenesis" hypothesis to explain how the inheritance of acquired characteristics might operate: All the parts of an organism's body threw off little corpuscles that were collected in the organism's reproductive system and then were passed on to the organism's offspring. (This idea did not originate with Darwin; similar concepts had been published before.)

Sorry not logged in .... but the following information was provided by Random Replicator--71.77.211.77 (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, have commented on FA talk page and am thinking about how to revise the paragraph.. .. dave souza, talk 14:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> That's it revised, I've added a couple of better references with external links, and a citation from Desmond & Moore about Darwin looking for evidence supporting "use and disuse heredity" (for the 1875 edition of The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication). .. dave souza, talk 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin wrote a great deal and wrote several books; I'm tired of secondary sources, which are notoriously horrible about such things. Note, for instance, the number of idiots who have claimed that Einstein was retarded. Many articles have been published in respected publications to that effect. But it isn't true; its a story that many people have foolishly accepted and have accepted as fact.

On the Origin of Species and all of Darwin's other works are in the public domain. Please cite -them-, not random secondary or tertiary or whatever sources. My reading of the PRIMARY source seems to indicate that Darwin rejected Lamarckism; I don't mind being wrong, but I do mind people trying to cite secondary sources OVER PRIMARY SOURCES. Primary sources on what people said are obviously superior to secondary sources about what they SAY he said.

The foreward to that edition is surely available online.

I don't care what secondary sources say; secondary sources are bad when primary sources are available. I can find huge numbers of secondary sources which say quite the opposite of what you claim, and I don't want to fight over bad sources. Source it directly from Darwin's writings, not from what people SAID he said. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I offended. Frankly, I find the Origin of Species a very complex text and must rely on others to interpret it for me. This however, is from the Text:

"When the first tendency was once displayed, methodical selection and the inherited effects of compulsory training in each successive generation would soon complete the work; and unconscious selection is still at work, as each man tries to procure, without intending to improve the breed, dogs which will stand and hunt best. On the other hand, habit alone in some cases has sufficed; no animal is more difficult to tame than the young of the wild rabbit; scarcely any animal is tamer than the young of the tame rabbit; but I do not suppose that domestic rabbits have ever been selected for tameness; and I presume that we must attribute the whole of the inherited change from extreme wildness to extreme tameness, simply to habit and long-continued close confinement."

Should we cite it? If you agree then perhaps you would consider revising your statement that you found erroneous information in the article and there are likely more. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. 1st edition. p, 113 – 121

In my work on the variation of domestic animals, I have attempted to arrange in a rude fashion the laws of variation under the following heads:—The direct and definite action of changed conditions, as shewn by all or nearly all the individuals of the same species varying in the same manner under the same circumstances. The effects of the long-continued use or disuse of parts........

Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts.—It is well known that use strengthens the muscles in the individual, and complete disuse, or the destruction of the proper nerve, weakens them..... Whether the several foregoing modifications would become hereditary, if the same habits of life were followed during many generations, is not known, but is probable....

Although man may not have been much modified during the latter stages of his existence through the increased or decreased use of parts, the facts now given shew that his liability in this respect has not been lost; and we positively know that the same law holds good with the lower animals. Consequently we may infer, that when at a remote epoch the progenitors of man were in a transitional state, and were changing from quadrupeds into bipeds, natural selection would probably have been greatly aided by the inherited effects of the increased or diminished use of the different parts of the body.

dave souza, talk 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Darwin, C. R. 1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 6th edition p. 108

Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts, as controlled by Natural Selection.

From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited. Under free nature, we have no standard of comparison, by which to judge of the effects of long-continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent-forms; but many animals possess structures which can be best explained by the effects of disuse.

The same statement appears in the 1st edition with the heading Effects of Use and Disuse, and the statements in Descent appear in the 2nd edition of 1882. Didn't change his mind. ... dave souza, talk 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, for those as don't mind secondary sources, Leakey, Richard E.; Darwin, Charles (1979). The illustrated origin of species. London: Faber. ISBN 0-571-14586-8.  p. 17-18 says Darwin developed his pangenesis theory "to account for his belief that some characteristics or habits acquired during a parent's lifetime could affect the corresponding attributes of its offspring." which he called "use-and-disuse heredity", more usually called [today] Lamarckism. "However, Lamarck's theory was rather different in that he additionally postulated a desire for change, or besoin, which caused that change to happen in the organism itself and then be passed on to its offspring. In Darwin's day this aspect of Lamarckism was not generally accepted, but virtually every scientist believed that characters acquired by use or disuse could be inherited." Leakey says it was Weissman who did most to convince the scientific world that this wasn't so, and describes the continuing dissent from this in the 20th century, including Paul Kammerer and Lysenko. I've seen it argued elsewhere that besoin really meant "need" to Lamarck, but was mistranslated. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No doubt, you will not even remotely consider changing your oppose; however, it would be appreciated if you would at least edit your statement on the F/A review page in which you proclaim the discover of a major error and there are likely others. Thanks Dave, at least someone has actually read the book.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [presumably addressed to Titanium Dragon]

<undent> I've revised the paragraph concerned, hope that's a bit clearer now. Bowing to the enthusiasm for primary sources, D&M and Are Individually Acquired Characters Inherited? by Alfred Russel Wallace. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. have been removed, and replaced by a reference to the Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts, as controlled by Natural Selection. section of The Origin as shown above. .. dave souza, talk 18:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who cited the text directly; I rather read those sections differently, but perhaps that's because I know about natural selection and don't even THINK in terms of LaMarckianism. However, you are probably right and I am probably wrong, and barring me finding Darwin saying what I think he meant (unlikely at best) I have no objection to it. I apologize about the factual errors issue though. Thank you for your swift response (and sourcing). I'll look around a bit myself, but I'm afraid I'll find you were correct. That said, I still don't think the article is FA quality; I find the prose in general to not be quite up to snuff, so my oppose vote shall remain. But I will note that one of my objections has been answered. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks? If the article is, in fact, poorly written--- there is little at this point I can do but feel bad. However, honest criticism is part of the process. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is POORLY written so much as it is not well-written; there is a difference. My intent is not to make you feel bad. Maybe I'll clean it up some more if I have some time in the next few days. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that will be appreciated. It's worthwhile bringing up these issues as there are many misunderstandings, both about evolution and about Darwin's own views which in some ways were misrepresented by his supporters as well as by opponents. Will try to help out as well, .. dave souza, talk 13:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk eek

Have tried to clarify the uniformitarian section, imo Gould's statement is clearly not "anti-Darwinian", if further evidence is needed see Niles Eldredge (Spring 2006). VQR - Confessions of a Darwinist 32–53. The Virginia Quarterly Review. Retrieved on 2007-12-26. .. dave souza, talk 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If you get a chance; would you edit the LaMarck revision in a way that most accurately addresses the views of Darwin and LaMarck. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe all it needs is the addition of a reference (!). Snalwibma (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from geographical distribution

As discussed in some detail by Eldredge, much of Darwin's inspiration came from Evidence of common descent#Evidence from geographical distribution, and I'd suggest a brief section about this at the head of the #Evidence for evolution section which I could draft. Comments? .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes or variations?

The opening sentence "Evolution is the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms that results in the emergence of new species" seems to me to be open to the common misconception that evolution is about organisms changing, when it's the accumulation of differences in offspring that leads to the change – my suggestion would be "Evolution is the accumulation of variations in succeeding generations of organisms that results in changes to the population, and the emergence of new species." The aim would be to cover aspects like peppered moth evolution, where there are no changes (beyond the possible original dark morph as found at the start of the nineteenth century – the evolution consists in changes in the proportion of the dark or the light morph in each generation of moths. ... dave souza, talk 15:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any improvement would be appreciated; especially if it involves potential misconceptions. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC problems

Hello all! I noticed that you seem to be having some trouble over at FAC. What can I do to help? Awadewit | talk 14:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems... ??? Ahhh you must mean the bashing statements over prose and "overall style" not being at F/A standards!!!! It reads beautifully to me; but I'm so over the top biased that my perception is meaningless. If you care to give it one more read through to identify any of those troublesome style "prose" issues; I would indeed be most grateful. At present, I am defending; but, honestly am not all the confident that it is as good as I seem to think. Clearly, some on the discussion page do not consider it "well written". If you can spare the time; at least if you say it sucks --- by god I will In Fact, know that it sucks!--Random Replicator (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still not enamored with the lead. (I know that leads are incredibly difficult to write, especially for articles such as this one which cover a wide array of topics, but I still think it can be better.) The editors seem to have decided to go for the "introductory" type of lead which doesn't try to allude to everything in the article. This is fine - it is more elegant. However, I still think that the lead focuses too much on the study of evolution and not enough on evolution itself. I would pick three to five key concepts about evolution that you think the reader needs to know and introduce them in the lead. (natural selection, for example?) Awadewit | talk 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been and will likely continue to be the most problematic section. I think I will hold off on this in hopes that someone else will take a stab at it!--Random Replicator (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y DoneOk I take the blame for the introductions current condition!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've even tweaked it some more!!! It is evolving faster than pathogenic bacteria --Random Replicator (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity: What happened to the beautiful dinosaur picture that used to be at the top of the page?Awadewit | talk 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done He's Back!!!! Dino must have gotten lost in my citation edits! --Random Replicator (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Wonderful! I hope you don't mind my little rearrangement so that the dinosaur appears immediately at the top of the page. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the Darwin section should have the tree illustration (which is now gone, too) rather than Darwin's picture? It would help illustrate the concept described in the text in the way you describe textbooks do in the FAC. Awadewit | talk 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's always Darwin's own tree, seen here. Awadewit | talk 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the original tree; before I saw this note. I do not feel strongly either way. I'll leave this un-struck and see how other s feel.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I find that the paragraph explaining the lack of human exceptionalism in Darwin's scheme in the Darwin section, while important, interrupts the flow of the section. Is there any way to integrate it better or move it to the end of the section or something? Awadewit | talk 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I placed it at the end; where it does read better. Tweaked it a bit to make it fit; but may need someone to read it over. --Random Replicator (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I think this is better. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • DNA is introduced in a footnote - when readers arrive at the beginning of "Modern synthesis", the article seems to assume they know what DNA is. Perhaps a slight explanation at this point or at the end of the Mendel section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I expanded the section to include a more comprehensive explanation of DNA.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Good. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Good that its finally done or its done good!--Random Replicator (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events. - And these were? :) Every kid is dying to know... Awadewit | talk 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew that when I put it in. Rather than opening up a very big can of worms; I thinkI would rather let the children be in ignorant bliss! So I deleted the cataclysmic part.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
More tweaking might be necessary. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y DoneSecond attempt Tweaked ... in fact expanded significantly in hopes of allowing the children to discover the really cool link to the demise of the dinosaurs.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Good idea! Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Modern synthesis" section does not seem to me to actually be about the modern synthesis (only the opening and closing of the section are - the middle is all Darwin). I think this section needs reworking. The two middle paragraphs are excellent, but perhaps they should go elsewhere? That would leave room for a real explanation of the synthesis. Awadewit | talk 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Snalwibma  :) where are you! --Random Replicator (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I gave it a shot. Darwin is in the right place at least. I'm not going to check it because I see the concerns coming!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not clear from the text whether modern scientists accept catastrophism. The article seems to suggest that they do, as it speaks of five catacylsmic events. I don't know if this is what the editors meant to convey, but I can see readers making such a connection. Awadewit | talk 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done In deleting the reference to the five cataclysmic events; which really is not necessary to address--- perhaps we also solved this concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No - I still think that the article doesn't make it clear whether catastrophism is a viable theory. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y DoneSecond attempt! Involved a major rewrite of the entire paragraph;thus and will require cleaning up my typical grammatical creativity. I hope it removed those nagging loose ends.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Much clearer. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ''Artificial selection is the controlled breeding of domestic plants and animals. In controlled breeding, humans determine which animals will reproduce, and to some degree, which alleles will be passed on to future generations. - This is the first time the word alleles appears in the article. I think it needs to be explained either here or earlier. Awadewit | talk 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I switched to the word gene; which has been explained and "I think" is suitable here. The term allele is defined in a following section.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is accurate! Do you know for sure? Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
To be safe, hold off on the check and we will wait for a second opinion!--Random Replicator (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


  • ''The fraction of genes that belong to a given allele is called the allele frequency. - This sentence throws me - I think it is the word "belong". I had to read it several times to make sure I understood it. I also tried replacing "allele" with the definition given in the section, but that didn't really help much. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y DoneBetter? Maybe... --Random Replicator (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be worth defining gametes in the "Hardy-Weinberg" section, as that is a technical word and you are addressing a non-technical audience. Awadewit | talk 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I opted to change the term gamete to simply sperm and egg.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know for sure, but I'm wondering if "gene" and "allele" are used precisely in the "Hardy-Weinberg Examples" section. I started to get confused for a moment and thought they were being used interchangeably. However, this could just be my lack of understanding. Awadewit | talk 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Cleaned it up a bit; by being consistent with the term allele as opposed to bouncing back and forth!--Random Replicator (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done (Assuming its accurate - I don't really know) Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is accurate; just not bogged down in specificity. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One allele produces black fur and accounts for 75% of the genes, the other produces white fur and makes up the remaining 25% of the genes. - I think this is confusing - I know what you mean, but it doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps if we knew 75% of the genes of what? Awadewit | talk 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I am pretty sure I cleared up any potential confusion.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I don't know, but perhaps it is just me. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This section has been accused of being non-wikipedic in the past --- too text book in nature. It is tempting to hit the delete key; except Filll has grown really fond of the mice in the picture. I've tweeked it some more.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If an allele’s chance of being passed on to the next generation is due entirely to random processes (the shuffling and combining that takes place in the formation of sex cells and fertilization), the allele frequencies will stay the same and the composition of the gene pool remains 75% black-coding genes and 25% white-coding genes. - Why? I don't understand. Sorry. Awadewit | talk 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done It reads better and I linked meiosis in the article. A very difficult idea for a one liner; thus more work may be needed.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would urge a "because...." clause to state the idea as clearly as possible. Awadewit | talk 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The why part has to do with statistical probabilities an the assumption that all alleles have an equal chance of being "picked" during the formation of the egg or sperm. Also, that each sperm or egg has an equal chance of meeting. If there are two alleles B=(Black) and b(white) and neither are favored during sperm/egg production and each eggs and sperm have an equal chance of meeting then the frequencies will never change. Formula: where B=.75% of the gene pool and b=25% of the gene pool, and where BB=B2 Homozygous black and Bb heterozygous = 2Bb and bb homozygous white=b2: then .752 + 2(.75)(.25) + .252 = 1.0 . .5625 + .375 + .062 = 1.0 That represents the distribution of the alleles in the gene pool until the end of time; assuming no evolution. Maybe this section can't be made "introductory". There have been request to delete it in the past.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mutations can also alter the gene pool by creating new alleles and thus changing the frequency of the pre-existing alleles.[1] Mutations immediately change the gene pool by substituting one allele for another. Mutations have very little impact on the overall allele frequency in a large population. - This is a little hard to follow and repeats the same sentence structure three times in a row. Something like "While having very little impact on the overall allele frequency in a large population because [insert reason], mutations..." might be better. Awadewit | talk 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I tried; perhaps others may wish to review my edits on this one. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think all of these statements needs "because" clauses - I would not assume your readers can make the inferences these sentences require. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This section was so much clearer when it was presented as a list. The concise separation of each factor that leads to changes in gene frequencies eliminated the "blurring" that is apparent when it is all muddled in a single paragraph. I'm starring at it as it stands and thinking I will likely only make it worse. Lets see if someone else will attack it with a fresh perspective.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the most dramatic effect on a gene pool results from natural selection which can reduce or increase the frequency of a specific allele in a gene pool. - Needs to be explained. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Expanded in an attempt to better explain.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This requires the geographic separation of a population, such as the emergence of mountain ranges or the formation of canyons. - So, the mountains or canyons have to form? Awadewit | talk 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I cleared it up ... but someone else please read it over since it required substantial modification --Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


MORE from Guettarda

  • I would favour bolding "evolution" at the start of the article, but that's neither here nor there
Y Done--Random Replicator (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not thrilled with the first sentence - it seems a bit clumsy. Also, it stresses speciation - while that's a crucial point to make, it misses the point that evolution is a continuous process, while species are arbitrary points that we assign to continua.
???? I made an attempt to address the over-emphasis on speciation. However, I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to satisfy everyone/anyone on the intro. I thought to steal some from the Evolution article introduction, but was quickly reminded of why this one was needed - it is bloated with scientific terminology and major concepts in an effort to be all things to all people. This is my 10,000th edit ... of the opening sentence! Someone else needs to put a green check here. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done No... I'll take the blame for its current condition!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Second sentence says that evolution has "has transformed the first species" into "a large number of different species". That just doesn't capture the millions (of eukaryotic) or billions (of prokaryotic) species that have originated from this common ancestor (or group of ancestors).
Y DoneDone--Random Replicator (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Third sentence - "this process" or "these processes"? Shouldn't we speak about "processes"?
Y DoneDone--Random Replicator (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fourth sentence - there's too much of a jump from evolutionary biology to Mendel and DNA.
Y DoneI attempted a transition in my introduction rewrite.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph - there is no single theory of evolution - there's a body of theory that is evolutionary biology.
  • The second paragraph should be combined into the first.
Y Done--Random Replicator (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement overvalues molecular biology, undervalues palaeontology and taxonomy, and leaves out biogeography, which was the key bit that clued Darwin in, and also is probably the most intuitively understandable. Guettarda (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The section "Darwin's idea" makes no mention of Wallace; I think that's a major deficiency. The final paragraph could start with a mention of (and link to) Wallace.
Y DoneDone--Random Replicator (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" goes into unnecessary detail. An introductory article needs a clear statement that Darwin lacked a theory of inheritance (but still did a pretty good job). Losing everything after the third paragraph would substantially improve the section, although the second to last sentence ("Darwin produced an unsuccessful theory...") might be worth keeping to close off the paragraph.
  • The second paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" could be clearer - the statement that "heredity works by reshuffling and recombining factors" isn't going to make much sense to someone who doesn't know this stuff already. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done --Random Replicator (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The section on the modern synthesis is misleading. The modern synthesis was not born of the discovery of DNA - it came from the integration of Mendel with Darwin. It came from the work of Fisher, Haldane, Huxley, etc. What these people did, before the discovery of the role of DNA, was to transform evolution into a viable modern science. The section totally misses the point - it talks about the Galapagos, progression and the KT. The section should start with the final sentence, and work from there.
I've spent a lot of energy on this. First by moving Darwin to the Darwin section, then attempting to rewrite with my limited skills. I'm sure it is not a green check status but it does address some of your concerns.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The image used in the "Species" section is a poor choice. The truly amazing diversification of cichlids is among the East African Rift Valley haplochromines. This is where we have hundreds of species originating from a handful of ancestors (one per lake?) in a few thousand years. The image is of an example of a group of hybrids of Central American species, probably Cichlasoma spp. Central American Cichlasomas are fairly diverse, but they show just average diversity for tropical species. The hybrids show high rates of deformity, which is likely to be a distraction. While there don't seem to be a lot of good pix of Haplochromis spp. (this and this are the only ones I could find), Mbunas show a similar, if not quite so overwhelming, pattern of diversification (and there are lots of good pix there).
Comment: Interestingly, I have had email exchanges with Dr. Walter Salzburger, a cichlid guru; who I was seeking confirmation on the general accuracy of that section. He is to provide me with more current examples from his studies in Lake Victoria cichlids. But until then, I am open for any picture with strong visual appeal.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Its a fish --- a cichlid ---perhaps --- a pretty blue one ---from Africa or a continent shaped very much like Africa ---will it work?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The section "Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution" might be better terms "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution". Obviously they are going to be different, or we wouldn't have a separate section. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Y DoneDone --Random Replicator (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you Awadewit for coming to help us; if anyone is an expert on FACs, it is Awadewit!!! I am mildly disturbed over the continuing loss of pictures, including the dinosaur picture and the phylogenic tree. However, many reviewers did not like either of these, and in fact hardly any other pictures or images of any kind. Hearing that allele appears way into the article, with no definition now, makes me cringe.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I will keep adding things as I read the article. I am at the MLA conference right now, but that is ending, so I can hopefully spend a little time on this article while I am recuperating from listening to several days of academic papers on literature. :) It's a nice break. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I know these list well! I'm always afraid to ask... if this is just the tip of the iceberg? I'm not sure if I can begin my line by line attack today; however, I can assure you no concern here will go un-addressed. The loss of the dinosaur picture must have been an error when editing. I had to move heaven and earth to get permission for that one. I have no formating skills; so could someone please replace it! I loved the tree as well, it was our first image. I have no problem swapping Darwin for it; we are heavy in portraits anyway... thou I like the young version and consider it a major improvement over the demonic one next door. I feel so much better, thanks so much for your support! --Random Replicator (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No iceberg - this is it. Awadewit | talk 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The List

Would it be possible to get two checks of approval Y Done for each item on the list. Perhaps, one below the other. That way we can be in agreement that the concern has been addressed and is "well done". I would feel much more confident that my attempts to correct the problem didn't simply make it worse. If there are additional concerns by others; perhaps they could be edited directly into the list as well. I made such a mess of the F/A page in attempting to address concerns; I think the "green check" which I must say is rather cool, will keep things in order here. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow a green check mark Y Done. I did not know.--Filll (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I need a red X for the ones I just can seem to fix! --Random Replicator (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah but of course: N Not done --Random Replicator (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

What's tghe summary doing at the end of the article? Shouldn't it be at the top? PiCo (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"Evolution,"says the lead, "is the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms that results in the emergence of new species." Welllllllll.....not quite. I think what you mean to say is: "Evolution is the emergence of new species through the accumulation of changes through succeeding generations of organisms." (I don't like the repetition of the word "through", but that's just aesthetics). The next sentence or two should then describe how these changes arise and are transmitted - it should not launch into a history lesson. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment does raise a general concern of the role of the introduction. Somewhere along the way I was given the general impression that the introduction should be a generalized overview of what is to come. There is a somewhat opposing view that it should be an expansive definition of the term "Evolution" itself. As a consequence we have a sort of middle ground introduction. This is a long topic; if we desire to keep the introduction brief, then a "preview" approach by necessity has to be short one liners. If we are only concerned about defining the term evolution; there are a million of them out there that all generally say the same thing. Thoughts?--Random Replicator (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We may also need to look at our readability index. Microsoft has us at 13.2 Some of that is sentence length: for example
The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1940–2002) developed a model that suggests that evolution, although a slow process in human terms, undergoes periods of relatively rapid change over only a few thousand or million years, alternating with long periods of relative stability, a model called "punctuated equilibrium" which explains the fossil record without contradicting Darwin's ideas.[54]" and some of that is word selection,

and some is word choices

Stephen Jay Gould called for a hierarchical perspective on selection--Random Replicator (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISCID?

[7] I rather doubt that they could be considered a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea I was getting bored typing to myself so I thought I would throw that one in to see if I was alone on this page. Of course the section cited was absolute text book perfect; and one could argue that the information on that site is as accurate and reliable as PBS or National Geographic or any other secondary reference site. It would make for an interesting debate as to what constitutes legitimate secondary sourcing! Sadly, it has the most organized and accurate definition section I have seen. Better than most textbooks --- I guess it is their perspective on the complexity issue that make them inappropriate? Take a look [8] the inter-connection of terms and organization is flawless. I failed to identify a single definition that fell short of accuracy. Maybe I will sneak in a Ken Ham citation later to see if you are still paying attention! --Random Replicator (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a page full of comments to the FAC, but I noticed that there's a section for that here. Should I leave them there, or add them here? Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you don't object I will copy/paste here as well. I've already made a mess of the FA page! Thanks for another list!!!! You addressed serious concerns, I will do my best to rectify them.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I merged it with the one above.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider second checking if you agree with the modifications?--Random Replicator (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been very busy editing this evening, if those that are concerned review the commentaries above... especially those that I am awaiting a second check (opinion on) Thanks so much for all the suggestions for improvement...... seriously :) --Random Replicator (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin and the finches

The story of Darwin's failure for multiple reasons to apply his theory to the Galápagos finches is well known and documented in biology. Based on this I removed the content from the article "The theory of natural selection was based on observations of variations in animals and plants, such as the finches that Darwin found on the Galápagos Islands."

"(Even though Darwin) was able to devise an explanation for evolution and adaptive radiation on islands in general, he did not apply it specifically to the finches." [1]

Maybe this has changed as Darwin biographies are surprisingly dynamic for just one man. If it has changed it should be specifically noted due to the long term use of knowledge to the contrary-that he could not use the finches, gathered too few, did not understand them, misidentified them, etc. I suggest domestic pigeons, or adding Gould's research on the finches. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Grant, Peter R.; Jonathan Weiner (1986). Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 8. 
That is indeed interesting. There is a great deal of emphasis in textbook and web sources on the importance of finches in Darwin's development of his theories on natural selection. There does seem to be numerous sources that state that the he did not initially understand the taxonomic relationships of the birds; however, I've found none that state that they played no role in his development of his theory. In fact I've found several that address his somewhat belated understanding that go onto mention that beak shape among finches were central to his understanding. Oh well. More importantly is it also a myth about the tortoises?--Random Replicator (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an issue in an introductory to evolution in a general encyclopedia and Darwin's introdution to evolution is "On the Origin of Species," which doesn't use the finches at all, that I recall. It uses pigeons extensively, and many other examples of domestic breeding.
Darwin did not discover the significance of the finches, John Gould did, and had to gather additional specimens and data from other members of the Beagle party (with Darwin's help) in order to fully elaborate what was going on, because of the poor collecting done by Darwin on the birds. An introduction to evolutionary theory should probably include Darwin's primary insights, and the significance of his bringing together the insights of others under the umbrella of Natural Selection-Darwin's true genius that led to his permanent standing as first among biologist.
I don't think he thought the tortoises were native to the islands.
The finches are of tremendous importance to evolutionary theory and early insights into and credibility for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, but their importance was pointed out to Darwin and discovered by Gould. This is what Gould is primarily remembered for. People have been astounded by the finches ever since, and I suspect Darwin of being the first to see Gould's complete brilliance. But astounded courtesy of Gould's discovery of their significance, not Darwin's, and I think in an introduction to evolution the emphasis should be Darwin, because an encyclopedia article should stay on target. I suggest pigeons.
--Amaltheus (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The initial premise here, that Darwin failed to apply his theory to the Galápagos finches, is completely wrong. Darwin did not notice the significance of the finches when he was on the Galápagos islands, but did notice a similar thing with mockingbirds, and heard stories that locals could tell which tortoise came from which island by the shape of their shell, but thought the tortoises had been imported by buccaneers and were not a native species. On the last lap of the voyage he began to put these points together enough to doubt that species were fixed. Following his return to the UK at the end of 1836, Gould was given the finch specimens and within a week announced on 10 January 1837 at a meeting attended by Darwin that what Darwin had taken to be wrens, blackbirds and slightly differing finches were "a series of ground finches which are so peculiar" as to form "an entirely new group, containing 12 species." By mid March 1837 Darwin was fully aware of the significance of the finches, mockingbirds and tortoises, and realised that original immigrants had been altered somehow to become an array of new species. By July he was secretly speculating in notebooks about transmutation. His ideas developed, and on 28 September 1838 he was inspired by reading Malthus to set out the first version of his theory. See Darwin's finches for references along with Niles Eldredge (Spring 2006). VQR - Confessions of a Darwinist 32–53. The Virginia Quarterly Review. Retrieved on 2007-12-26., and Inception of Darwin's theory for context. Pigeons are good too, but as I vaguely recall, they came later. Nuff said? .. dave souza, talk 11:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I already used the pigeons in the section on artificial selection. The loss the finch "line" had no impact on the article; I doubt I would have ever noticed that it disappeared. If we add it back I would be inclined to expand to include his lack of immediate understanding etc.. etc.. so I say leave the edit as it stands. I must say, that this little series has been enlightening. I can only imagine the edit wars that were raged on the discussion page for Darwin! Thank you both for taking the time to extend my understanding.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to assist, it's worth reading the Eldredge article cited above as there is truth in the point that Darwin played down the finches in his publications, and it suggests why. I've had a look, and in On the Origin of Species he doesn't mention them by name, but does refer to the unique bird species of the Galapagos identified by Gould showing variations from similar species on the mainland, as explained by his theory. Oddly, the common complaint was when articles mentioned him noticing the mockingbirds differed by island, and editors changed it to finches! .. dave souza, talk 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to communicate on Wikipedia because people focus on one thing, (usually that someone else is wrong about one thing in some way, even if it is tangential to the result of well-written, well-researched, and accurate prose), when, in this case, as often, the overall picture of the finches and Darwin and the theory is what is important and what matters should they be used as an example in this particular article. The finches and Darwin do not fit neatly and tidily into an introductory article on evolution because of the major contribution of Gould to Darwin's thinking on the finches and because Darwin meticulously observed among the domestic animals what was shown to him about the finches and because Darwin does not use the finches specifically in On the Origins of Species. The sentence in this article gave great importance to the finches and neglected Gould's contribution and overplayed the importance of the finches in relation to Darwin, probably because they enjoy immense modern popularity compared to other organisms Darwin studied. I tried very carefully to express the problem with using the finches as a primary example, because I felt it was important to be accurate and concise in an article of this nature. Now I'm told the original premise is wrong (I'm wrong!), although supported by Eldredge.
I stand by my original words and premise based on the sentence and the relationships between Gould and Darwin and the finches and his theory. But, go ahead and use the finches, I've spent too much time on the point and would have rather spent the time editing something. --Amaltheus (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I good healthy exchange of perceptions is all this was. " The theory of natural selection was based on observations of variations in animals and plants, such as the finches that Darwin found on the Galápagos Islands.". I understand. You are saying that Darwin doesn't deserve the full credit for the finch connection and we would be dis'n' Gould by not speaking up on his behalf. We are implying in the text above a direct connection when there isn't one. If, to use the finches requires a supplementary section on Gould then we best leave it out. We've already made it clear that Darwin did not have an original idea in his head  :) throughout the article. Its all about accuracy! I think it always hard to communicate through a keyboard; it is so easy to mis-read the intent, or read between lines, or miss the joke. I hope there are no hard feelings. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Firstly, apologies to Amaltheus for appearing to dismiss your original words and premise, which I clearly misunderstood. This was done in a bit of a rush, as light relief from the much more tedious and unpleasant work of trying to fend off attempts to ban a productive editor. The statement "The theory of natural selection was based on observations of variations in animals and plants, such as the finches that Darwin found on the Galápagos Islands." is entirely accurate but oversimplified. Although he obviously applied the theory to the finches, he did not write that up in great detail, and the theory was also based on other things as Eldredge notes. Gould was the first to show the significant point that these very different birds were all "finches" yet were all separate species, but it was Darwin who grasped the significance of this information, that the birds showed transmutation of species from a common ancestor, a point Gould is extremely unlikely to have countenanced. Similarly, Darwin grasped the significance of Owen's identification of the south American fossils. Anyway, this blethering is by no means wasted. I've already added info to the finches article as stated above, and have now revised Gould's bio, so that it now acknowledges the point you make, and the intro reads "John Gould... was an English ornithologist..... His identification of the birds now nicknamed "Darwin's finches was pivotal in the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, though they are barely mentioned in Charles Darwin's great book On the Origin of Species." Hope you find that clarification useful, all the best and thanks for the diversion. ... dave souza, talk 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #1 Line by Line Veto --- Introduction.

Concern copied from above:

Y Done Awadewit: I'm still not enamored with the lead. (I know that leads are incredibly difficult to write, especially for articles such as this one which cover a wide array of topics, but I still think it can be better.) The editors seem to have decided to go for the "introductory" type of lead which doesn't try to allude to everything in the article. This is fine - it is more elegant. However, I still think that the lead focuses too much on the study of evolution and not enough on evolution itself. I would pick three to five key concepts about evolution that you think the reader needs to know and introduce them in the lead. (natural selection, for example?)

  • Comment: This section receives the most criticism; not always as tactfully done as this one. I have reworked it somewhat since this statement; but, I am 100% sure it still will not be adequate to the task. Herein lies my confusion on the mission. Should we be attempting to address the term "evolution" or should we be providing an over-view of the article on evolution? This lead is a compromise of both. Now a word of caution. "You can't see the forest for the trees". The tendency has been to over-explain to counteract accusations of "errors of omission" by defining every exception. The finch dialog in the above post, to some degree, serves as an example. In the introduction at least, there has to be an element of generalization; otherwise, the reader will be over-whelmed with detail and merely walk away confused. This concern is what started this article. The extensive amount of defense against errors of omission made the "real" article evolution impossible to read (although it has improved with recent edits). To balance accuracy, with readability, in a introduction to such an enormous concept may be out of everyone's reach. I am somewhat biased; but, personally I am comfortable with the lead as it stands.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My criticism still stands: the introduction discusses the study of evolution too much. It should focus on the theory of evolution itself. The discoverers are less important than the discovery! (By the way, I agree with everything you have said above - that is not my problem with the introduction. My problem is that it doesn't do what you want it to.) Awadewit | talk 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It finally sank it. I agree; it is overly focused on the historical development. I will take another stab at it now that I'm on the same page! Or perhaps others may be willing to approach it with this concern mind. Thank you.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've expanded it to include the information I think you are requesting. I thought perhaps I could "steal" a simple generalized overview of Evolution. Publications are gun-shy because of the "not exactly" clause that I already see coming with this one. Also, it is difficult to describe the actual process without introducing vocabulary terms that may be outside of the general knowledge realm. Look at the massive amount of terminology and "blue words" in the Evolution introduction. Well enough excuses: here it is: --Random Replicator (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Biological Evolution refers to the processes that have transformed life from its earliest forms into the vast diversity that characterizes all living organisms today. Evolution is a result of the cumulative changes that occur in a population of organisms over succeeding generations. These changes occur within the hereditary material of the organism known as genes. Such changes (mutations) in the genes introduce new variations into the population. The environment will then influence which variations are most likely to be passed on to the next generation and which will most likely be lost; a process known as natural selection. Thus evolutionary change is mainly based on the interaction between the hereditary information in populations of organisms and their environment. Over many generations, the process of the random introduction of new variations and the non-random processes of natural selection can lead to the formation of new species from ancestral life forms.

Since the origin of life, evolution has transformed the earliest life forms (the common ancestors of all living things) into the estimated 1.75 million different species living today. Evolutionary biology, the study of evolution, has provided a clear understanding of the processes that account for the variety of organisms, both present and extinct. The current understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond the foundation established by Charles Darwin in the late 19th century. Evolution has hence drawn support from the research of individuals in many scientific fields. For example, Gregor Mendel's work with plants explained the hereditary patterns of genetics which led to a clearer understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance. The discovery of the structure of DNA combined with advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms. This information led to explanations on how new species develop from ancestral forms, an important component of evolution known as speciation. The theory of evolution serves as the foundation for much of the research conducted in biology, including molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy. Supported by a large quantity of reliable scientific evidence, evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community.

  • There are kinks to work out, but they are small - they are at the level of prose. This is, in my opinion, a much better starting point. Awadewit | talk 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The power of a single wordmuch. I feel better about the project and my contributions. Thanks for restoring the confidence. I'm going to put it in for editing.--Random Replicator (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # 2 Line by Line Veto --- Images

Concern copied from above:

Y DoneAwadewit: Perhaps the Darwin section should have the tree illustration (which is now gone, too) rather than Darwin's picture? It would help illustrate the concept described in the text in the way you describe textbooks do in the FAC.

  • Comment: The image selections are another source of concern that have been raised numerous times. I tend to think textbooks; which are about engaging the young minds. I know as a kid I read every caption in our World Book, but never read the text. National Geographic -- need I say more. Awadewit has reformatted our current image selection and I think we are both pleased with the outcome; however we welcome additional perspectives here before we deem the matter addressed.--Random Replicator (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider this issue resolved. Awadewit | talk 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: One Down --- although the image issue may still be problematic in the Modern Synthesis section since I was forced to move the orchid. Are there any illustrations that may serve that section well and break up the extensive text?--Random Replicator (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any, but I did an image of Watson in the "Source of variation" section. Awadewit | talk 08:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The image layout looks very good at this point (1-8-08); nice job formating.--Random Replicator (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #3 Line by Line Veto --- Modern Synthesis

Concern copied from above:

Y Done Awadewit: The "Modern synthesis" section does not seem to me to actually be about the modern synthesis (only the opening and closing of the section are - the middle is all Darwin). I think this section needs reworking. The two middle paragraphs are excellent, but perhaps they should go elsewhere? That would leave room for a real explanation of the synthesis.

N Not done Guettarda: The section on the modern synthesis is misleading. The modern synthesis was not born of the discovery of DNA - it came from the integration of Mendel with Darwin. It came from the work of Fisher, Haldane, Huxley, etc. What these people did, before the discovery of the role of DNA, was to transform evolution into a viable modern science. The section totally misses the point - it talks about the Galapagos, progression and the KT. The section should start with the final sentence, and work from there.

  • Comment: It has undergone a complete rewrite since these comments were left. The Darwin material was moved to Darwin where I think it fits very nicely. I am not as confident of the text that I added; however, it should be easy enough to clean it up from here. Please take a look. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph weaves around between too many different topics. It was not totally clear to me what of that material was the result of the modern synthesis and what was not. Also, the orchid picture now seems out of place. Awadewit | talk 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved the orchid picture to the Darwin section. We must keep some plant representation and it is so related to the orchid text. However, we now have too much text in Modern Synthesis. Perhaps someone has a preference for an image here. I'm hoping someone else can address this section, I'm not sure I really know what is important, other than the fusion of scientific fields. --Random Replicator (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The second paragraph was a desperate effort to save some good information; but the reason it wove about is because it didn't belong there. I hated to remove information; but it just will not fit there. The entire paragraph was deleted. I hope to work it in elsewhere.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ok I have been very creative. I moved remaining non-modern synthesis material (2nd paragraph referred to above) to the section above called Source of Variations. I like that section in the way it stays more on less on theme "variations" but manages to catch many lose ends. The remaining material is only about modern synthesis... which really is more than adequate for it is merely the idea that it all came together. We were using that section as a catch all --- which clearly did not work. I truly hope this works. Could you C/E the first few sentences concerning Watson and Crick in the Sources of variations section. They are brand new. --Random Replicator (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is much better now (I did some copy editing - please check for errors). However, what is now the last paragraph of "Source of variation" (on the lack of a "goal" for evolution, etc.) now seems to be a bit out of place - this is something I am much less sure about, though. It could fit there - thoughts? Awadewit | talk 08:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the solution might be to change the heading simply to "variation" or some such thing. The last paragraph has some critical information and is actually orphaned child from an old list called Misconceptions. Its bounced about from section to section but I really feel it has found a comfortable - suitable home - here. Let me know if a subtle heading change might tie it in better. Thank god synthesis is suitable; I found that section annoying.--Random Replicator (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # 4 Line by Line Veto --- Weinberg

N Not done This section has elicited some discussion in various locations in regards to both clarity and need:

Suppose a group of mice inhabit a barn. In this population, there are only two alleles for the gene that controls fur color. One allele for the fur color in the mouse population produces black mice and accounts for 75% of the genes. The other allele for the fur color produces white mice and makes up the remaining 25% of the genes in the population. If the only factors determining an allele’s chance of being represented in the next generation are random shuffling of alleles during the formation of sex cells (meiosis) and the random recombination that takes place during fertilization, the allele frequencies will stay the same from one generation to the next. In this example, the composition of the gene pool in the mouse population remains 75% black-coding alleles and 25% white-coding alleles. Because there is no change in the allelic frequencies, there is no evolutionary change in fur color. This population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium or is non-evolving. It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation.

  • Comment: I strongly feel that Hardy-Weinberg is essential to understanding Evolution. I know this because in teaching, when I describe what it takes to maintain equilibrium; the student truly understand that its virtually impossible; and thus evolution is a reality. The complex part of Weinberg, is grasping the concept of equilibrium as it relates to the formula. However, the primary concern is over the example itself. Are hypothetical examples appropriate in an encyclopedia as a teaching tool? If not, a simple deletion of this one would quickly solve the clarity problem. If so; is there a way to make this example clarify as opposed to confuse? Frankly I would prefer to keep it. But if it only serves to confuse, then its role as a teaching tool is maybe not so good. Can anyone fix it? --Random Replicator (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that hypothetical examples are fine, however I am not sure that this section yet achieves what you are trying to achieve with it. I do not think that the reader grasps how difficult it is to maintain equilibrium and thus that evolution almost always happens. Somehow that must be made clearer. (Actually, I did not realize that was the reason you wanted to include it until you mentioned it just now - I thought it was just a section explaining when evolution didn't happen. I thought it was rare, but it didn't strike me as anything earth-shattering. Sorry!) Awadewit | talk 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
To make it clear, would it be a good idea to start the HWE section with a statement something like "A good way to appreciate that evolution is constantly occurring - that evolution is the norm in biological populations - is to examine a hypothetical situation in which there is no evolution. This situation is called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium." And then carry on as at present. Snalwibma (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #5 Line by Line Veto --- Sentence clarity - mutations and weinberg

Concern copied from above:

Y Done Awadewit: Mutations can also alter the gene pool by creating new alleles and thus changing the frequency of the pre-existing alleles.[1] Mutations immediately change the gene pool by substituting one allele for another. Mutations have very little impact on the overall allele frequency in a large population. - This is a little hard to follow and repeats the same sentence structure three times in a row. Something like "While having very little impact on the overall allele frequency in a large population because [insert reason], mutations..." might be better.

  • Comment: I made a second attempt(below) since the concern was posted; However, it likely still falls short. I could use some help in its resolution. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mutations can also alter the gene pool by creating new alleles and thus changing the frequency of the pre-existing alleles. The introduction of a single allele by the process of mutation would have very little impact on the frequencies of alleles in a large population. However, in a population of only a few individuals, the introduction of single allele would be statistically significant--Random Replicator (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm thinking that the phrase "statistically significant" might not mean much to our audience. :) Imagine them replacing it with "significant" or "important" - is that good enough? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I replaced it with this line: However, in a population of only a few individuals, the introduction of single allele could have a significant impact on the frequency of alleles. Worthy of Green?--Random Replicator (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't mean you should replace it with "significant" - I meant that readers might do that and I wondered if the meaning would be lost if they did. I was wondering if we needed to explain "statistically significantly". Awadewit | talk 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm back with a new approach!

The initial impact of a single mutation on the frequency of the alleles in the gene pool is related to the size of the population. In a large population with large numbers of alleles for a trait, the addition of one new form of an allele by a mutation would do little to change the relative proportions. However, in a small population with only a few alleles for that trait; the introduction of that mutated form would have an immediate, noticeable impact on the frequencies. Thoughts?--Random Replicator (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes - I like it! Awadewit | talk 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #6 Line by Line Veto: Inadequate in its coverage.

Concern copied from above:

N Not done Guettarda: The current arrangement overvalues molecular biology, undervalues palaeontology and taxonomy, and leaves out biogeography, which was the key bit that clued Darwin in, and also is probably the most intuitively understandable.

  • Comment: I'm uncertain if this in regards to a section or the entire article. Perhaps the section on evidence for evolution? There have been concerns that the articles falls short in introducing some major concepts on evolution. One that caught my attention was epigenetics. Frankly, the general layout simply emerged one weekend; mostly sequenced around my lecture notes. Its been stable for a year, other than my annoying minor obsession. I would; however, be delighted to see someone else add to its breadth if it does fall short. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # 7 Line by Line Veto --- Over-emphasis of Mendel

Concern copied from above:

N Not done Guettarda: The first paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" goes into unnecessary detail. An introductory article needs a clear statement that Darwin lacked a theory of inheritance (but still did a pretty good job). Losing everything after the third paragraph would substantially improve the section, although the second to last sentence ("Darwin produced an unsuccessful theory...") might be worth keeping to close off the paragraph.

  • Comment: I boldly revised the heading to The Source of Variations from the former Mendel's contribution. The section itself was not really about Mendel so much as it was about the illusive source that accounted for diversity. We went through LaMarck (Which was the most challenged section) then Darwin's misconceptions, followed by what I thought was a modest introduction to Mendel's contributions. This might not be a bad section to introduce DNA and maybe even the epigenetics; shoud someone be so inspired. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #8 Line by Line Veto --- Single Theory of Evolution

Concern copied from above:

N Not doneGuettarda: Second paragraph - there is no single theory of evolution - there's a body of theory that is evolutionary biology.

  • Comment: The intro has been rearranged a tad since this concern so perhaps it has been addressed. Although I think this a form of the original line: Evolution has hence drawn support from the research of individuals in many scientific fields.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #8 Line by Line Veto --- the fish

Concern copied from above:

N Not done Guettarda: The image used in the "Species" section is a poor choice. The truly amazing diversification of cichlids is among the East African Rift Valley haplochromines.

  • Comment: I feel somewhat better about the condition of the article in that the concerns are now able to be this focused. I changed fish. Is it accurate? On a different note: I had an email correspondance with Dr. Walter Salzburger,[9] (Assistant ProfessorZoologisches Institut, Universität BaselVesalgasse 1, 4051 Basel, Switzerland) who read our entry with particular interest in the cichlid section on speciation and confirmed the accuracy of the text itself. Go us! --Random Replicator (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #8 Line by Line Veto --- use of text books

Concern copied from FA discussion page:

N Not doneOrangeMarlin: The references annoy me. I personally think books make lousy reference sources, unless there's a good quote to be used. Almost everything written in a textbook or other scholarly books is a review, so the original source is EASILY found. I don't like inconsistent referencing either.

  • Comment: The reference section has been a source of concern. It may be the criticism that keeps us off FA. I know it is the section that is my least favorite to address. None-the-less. I noticed in the Evolution article they used journals exclusively. Easy to cite and format-- basically all from the same general location. The problem. At best you get an abstract, rarely the full text and at worst it is overly complex. I agree on the text book concern; in that it is not immediately accessible on the internet. Since this concern has been raised I have expended a monumental amount of time seeking web sources that are reputable and readable. Many of our citations link to some incredibly interesting general information resources. I personally have no concern over secondary sources in that they are likely more suited for our audience. Although it does make for less than stream-line appearance in the reference section. On the upside... OrangeMarlin takes no prisoners; so I am hoping the rest of the article past muster?--Random Replicator (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: While journals are preferable to textbooks, I think using college-level textbooks is hardly tragic, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing physical books - there is no policy against it, and indeed, books are very commonly cited. I think it is kind of silly to ask for everything to be online, because most stuff isn't, and it isn't as if journals are any more accessible (and in many ways, are less so - your local library is more likely to have random textbook X than random scientific journal X, though obviously it depends on your library (and whether you're in college)). Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it a requirement on Wikipedia to use "original sources?" Are books bad per se as reference sources on Wikipedia and where does it say this? This seems, imo, a strange requirement for a general encyclopedia. Original sources in the sciences that have not been reviewed could be problematic, particularly in an area as well studied, extensively reviewed, and dynamic in light of computer and DNA rates of advancement of knowledge as evolutionary biology in the early 21st century. Would someone elaborate on Wikipedia and FA requirements to use original sources? --Amaltheus (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding about referencing Wikipedia articles is that so-called 'secondary sources' must be used. Unfortunately, the definition of 'secondary source' has not been pinned down, if one looks at the talk pages to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. One arguement was that the use of 'original sources' was akin to 'original research'. Wikipedia must use the pre-digested knowledge or synthesis of 'secondary sources' to produce a tertiary work...in the jargon. See Wikipedia:No original research where it - I just checked - still says:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How is it OR to quote the conclusion of a paper? No wikipedia users are analysing the data, they are using conclusions from the abstract and discussion. That is not interpretative in any way. I think your quote is not relevant to the usage here. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interpreting the Wikipedia:No original research official policy, I'm just quoting it :-) I'll let others do the divining. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the issue. By "original paper" is not needed to mean "original research," but by confining sources to only "original papers" it is likely that users will add "original research" that has not been further sanctified by the scientific community at large. This article is not about brand new, cutting edge knowledge, but it is about a field where the rate of change of knowledge is increasing at a fantastic rate. There is danger in using only "original papers" in an article of this nature. This is also somewhat outside the field of synthesizing knowledge: a requirement that one use only a single type of resource, papers only. There are excellent biologists synthesizing what is known in this arena already. Are Wikipedia editors so talented that they are better at this than the world's leading biologists? Imo, no. Dismissing them wholesale should be done with thoroughly based reasons. I would like to know this reasoning, but don't see it anywhere (the policy or the reasons behind the use "original papers" only required in this. Anybody can edit seems to be freely interpreted on Wikipedia as anyone can tell anyone what they assume is policy. Is this the case? Or is there existing policy, discussed by editors, and long established, that books are bad sources and "original papers" should be used? If this is not the case, this should be stricken as a requirement for this article from this one editor. It is not unusual in the biological sciences today that a conclusion is further elaborated differently in the next paper. When it is original research is when this most often happens. Amaltheus (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Take no prisoners!!!!! Oh sorry. There are several FA reviewers that want consistency in references. If I were an FA reviewer (and they don't get paid enough for me to ever want to do it), I'd want very well done references. There are a number of us who can find either free weblinks to articles or can read the article itself. Abstracts can be good enough, as long as one doesn't take it out of context, or misinterpret it. Books just aren't good references, because they are big, usually 2-5 years out of date on the very date they're published, and unless you have the book, you can't confirm or deny the reference. I utilize a ton of books when I work on articles. However, I usually search by the author's name for up to date articles, or read the references in the book itself. OK, I think an FA deserves us to be anal-retentive about references. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that it is an excellent idea to use references that the audience we are addressing has a chance of understanding. If some of the readers actually want to learn more (!), we should direct them to good sources (in whatever form they may happen to be). I see no reason to direct them to the hot-off-the-presses research that they cannot understand. We should foster learning and understanding! Also, as I understand it, most of the information in this article is not "new" knowledge that came out yesterday that needs to be cited to such sources - it is what is taught in basic biology classes. I think that looking at introduction to general relativity is instructive - the references there are a mix of helpful websites, textbooks, articles, and popular science books. Awadewit | talk 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Question: Are there listed requirements for FA or is it a completely arbitrary process? Wikipedia seems that way. No books, here, not even textbooks, but use pop science books elsewhere? Superb pop science book choices, by the way, on intro to general relativity. But Campbell's an excellent biology text, too. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • See WP:FA? - In my experience, FAC is indeed somewhat arbitrary. :) One reason for that is probably that the criteria are supposed to be loose enough, I think, to adjust for a wide variety of articles. (Interestingly, the citation demands for humanities and science articles are radically different - why, I don't really know, but they are). I think what we are asking for here is a little common sense - what are the best sources for this article. No one is saying that the sources shouldn't be reliable. The question is just what kind of reliable source. Awadewit | talk 08:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • When the problem is you "personally think books make lousy reference sources" that's not fixable by the writers. You're (you meaning the person so asking) asking them to personally write the article to suit your tastes-a thankless task with more than one reviewer with more than one personal taste. I can't find another way to look at the criticism above to use it to make the article a better general encyclopedia article, and it seems silly to try to write an encyclopedia article for one, so I won't ask more questions, and I will bow out of this personal area. It seems the answer is seasoned discussion among writers to agree upon these issues before hand so that writers of articles know what is expected. This can't be done if, after the fact of writing, one is required to address the personal tastes of a reviewer rather than conform to a standard. But, thank you for the link to look at, it is precisely what I sought to attempt some understanding of the general issue not this specific case. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Amaltheus, I'd suggest reading WP:RS in the context of WP:V and WP:NOR. The article currently cites books, including some primary sources such as The Origin of Species. It also cites secondary sources which are needed for assessment or interpretation, including the splendid illustrated Origin of Species, edited and with illustration and commentary by Richard E. Leakey. That's a secondary source commenting on the original, as well as including primary source material .. dave souza, talk 11:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm reading these things you provided but I don't see anything that says books can't be references if a FA reviewer doesn't like them. WP:V says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." It doesn't say books are "lousy references sources." Are you supporting that books can't be used in FA with your post? There's only so much reading I can do that doesn't agree with what is being said here before it gets frustrating. Is there anything on Wikiepdia that supports "books are lousy references?" --Amaltheus (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure who you are arguing against at this point. I certainly never said books can't be used - I would encourage the use of appropriate books as sources for this article. Awadewit | talk 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: All the Textbooks have been farmed out to specific web sites. The over-use of the Campbell Biology Resource may have been the catalyst for this complaint. The reference we have now are credible, accessable, interesting resources for additional "painless" reading. The books that remain in my opinion are noteworthy, generally available, and are interesting to read as well. Our target audience is well served here. Click on links and you will see that we've taken full advantage of the connectivity of the internet and at the same time potentially introduced the general population to some awesome web sites [10] [11][12]. The use of school books did seem a bit desperate and clearly did not take advantage of the "information highway". OrangeMarlin, does the removal of the General Textbook; resolve the problem or is it that books in general are inappropriate for FA status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm very favourable towards general text book references for this "introductory" article. I don't think it is right to say they are out of date for general points. Much text in a book does not change from one edition to the next. On the other hand a the conclusions in a specific primary source may well be contested the next month in the journals. David D. (Talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In particular this may be the case with new ideas in the biological sciences, although probably not with this particular article. Thanks for the comment. --Amaltheus (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know where the argument against printed sources is coming from (it is very strange) but in Wikipedia:Article development - which is part of "The Path to a Feature Article" - it explcitily suggests using printed sources and libraries. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. This makes sense: using a variety of sources, including the syntheses of the field done by the world's leading biologists: often authors of textbooks. --Amaltheus (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't pursue this any more. Wikipedia doesn't say don't use textbooks. It says they're reliable. It depends on the textbooks and the topic of the article if it's a good source. They shouldn't be banned because someone doesn't like them, imo. IMO it's unreasonable that a reviewer gets to make up unique requirements for an article. I don't see how FA can be met under these circumstances. I think Random Replicator's hard work won't amount to much with this. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Please note that unreasonable objections are not taken into account by the FAC director and his proxy (the people who ultimately decide whether an article becomes an FA or not). Statements such as "books make lousy references" are unreasonable in light of WP:V and WP:RS. Not to worry - there is some sanity in this process. Awadewit | talk 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then why is this No 8 veto for the FA status here: "The references annoy me. I personally think books make lousy reference sources, unless there's a good quote to be used." I guess you mean it is reasonable, and my saying it isn't isn't? But if it's reasonable someone could have given me policy, but people gave me pages saying books can be used and textbooks are reliable, but the big red X stays here. The big red X saying the article is vetoed because it includes textbooks because they annoy someone. I will stop watching this page. There is no need to respond to this. This veto IS unreasonable. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am saying that the objection is unreasonable and your response is reasonable. The X has remained because the original objector has not removed it. Awadewit | talk 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps because I solicited User:Orangemarlin insights, I've been somewhat reluctant to dismiss them. In some regards I agreed with the over-use of textbooks; at the time of the criticism Campbell was cited close to 7 times. I did attempt to address that concern by increasing the diversity of citations. (Technically, almost all the information on this topic can be cited to any College Level Text.) But to do so would take away from the real value of On-line Encyclopedia's --- instant access. Compromises have been made; logical counterpoints have been given; Amaltheus has made an exceptional case to this point, supported by specific policy references. The red X remains until the objector removes it; however, I strongly disagree with the Temporary Oppose on the FA page as it is outlined to date. I have no idea of specific revisions that I could implement, other than the compromises to date, that might lead to its removal. Hopefully, it will be further justified or perhaps removed as a concern. I do appreciate everyones willingness to express a view and hope you will always see such discussion as the formula that makes Wikipedia superior to other one-view general knowledge resources.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # 9 Line by Line Veto -- References in general

Concern Copied from FA Page:

N Not done Circeus: References are formatted at best with troubling inconsistency.

N Not done Kaypoh: Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs:

  • Comment I've noticed from your contribution page that your involvement in FA attempts have be extensive; in fact numerous contributions over the last two weeks; many within a few minutes of each other. Are you a Bot? You stated that your English is not so good; yet you review FA's and comment on prose and copy/edits; then within minutes, draw conclusions of support or oppose. If you are an enormously talented reviewer, then my sincere apologies for the implications here; if you are bouncing around the FA page "voting", then you added unwarrented stress to this very serious process.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done -Brískelly: there are unreferenced paragraphs

  • Comment: I have requested a response on the FA page; this is the entire commentary on which they based their oppose.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Feedback irrelevant: "voted" on close to 20 articles while spending about 1 minute on each. Stumbled across it on User talk:Raul654 discussion page concerning "quick votes"; thus the oppose and concern, I assume will be null and void. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not doneY Done Blnguyen : ...the examples section is entirely unreferenced.

N Not doneY Done Kaldari: ... more citations.

  • Comment: There has been a long exchanged on the featured article page on the number of references and the formating. On formating: I take credit for the issue. I had no idea there was a template. It has since been applied with painful efforts to be consistent. Because of the use of internet web sites as resources; it has been difficult. I hope this problem has been addressed. As to the number of citations. Give me a break. sixty-one --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Make that 62. The National Academy of Science new publication [13] recently featured on ABC News has a great section on the fossil evidence; and the full text is available on-line. I suggest we add it as a web resource as well.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lots of references have been added since I raised my objection (about 25 in fact). Most of the sections that really cried out for citations have been fixed, so I am now satisfied with the level of referencing. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Blnguyen crossed-out this concern on the FA page so I took the liberty to do so here as well.--Random Replicator (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # 10 Line by Line--- Veto Hagiographic

Concern copied from FA discussion page:

N Not done 69.202.60.86 : I'm not too fond of the "Summary" section. As it's written, it reads like one of those dreaded "In conclusion" paragraphs to a high school essay. First person plural should really never be used in encyclopedic prose (I saw this elsewhere in the article, too). "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced..." <-- Hagiographic sentence that serves really no purpose.

  • Comment: The First Person that crept in has been corrected. I toned down the Hagiographic (cool word) so I guess the only concern left is the summary. I like the summary.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I said before, since this geared toward a high-school audience, I think the "high school" summary is appropriate. :) Our readers will recognize it. Awadewit | talk 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Awadewit. Remember the primary readership. Keep it as it is! Snalwibma (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #11 Line by Line Veto --- Not Well Written

Concern copied from FA discussion page:

N Not doneY Done Titanium Dragon: My objection on factual accuracy has been more or less met; I think their reading of the section is most likely correct and mine wrong. However, my oppose remains, mostly on the grounds of it just not being as well-written as I think a FA should be (overall quality of prose).

N Not done -Kaypoh: The article has many problems and is not ready for FA. The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate.I see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. The article is not well-written and needs a copy-edit, but I cannot help because my English is not very good.

  • Comment: This comment from Kaypoh was one of lots of throw-away remarks from a drive-by reviewer who didn't even realise that the article was already GA status. And anyway, it is better NOT to jump into the so-called evolution-creation controversy in this intro article. And again, having a few short paragraphs is good, not bad! I'd recommend simple deletion of this comment, or a firm and confident decision to ignore it. Snalwibma (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was leaning in the same direction; and hope for either a follow-up or a nullification of opppose.
    • Reviewed users contribution page; reviewed 4 entries; including this one within a 30 minute time period. Massive voting sequences; in short time frames. A career opposer. Always same comment --- I'd help but English not so good. Too funny.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done Blnguyen : Too many dot point sections....

  • Comment: Again, what's the problem? Who says it's "too many"? I think it's just right... Snalwibma (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have asked for future clarification on what constitutes too many on the FA page. I am sure we will get follow-up soon.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not doneY Done Kaldari: Needs extensive copyediting ....

  • Comment:I am hoping that the LaMarck issue has been resolve to everyones satisfaction and factual concerns have been addressed. There have been numerous edits to the article which may have remedied the "Not Well Written" . Obviously more specific concerns in that regard would be more meaningful.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article looks a lot better, and I think that creationism's exclusion is entirely valid. Creationism is very fringe, and doesn't need to be in an intro article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Kaldari changed to support on FA page so I assume this concern has been addressed. I am taking the liberty of switching it to green.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Too many dot points. Would you care to comment further Blnguyen? The use of organized list was dramatically reduced; so I assume the concern is not too many but the use of any. Is there is a policy on that issue? I went looking and the only reference I could find ironically looked like this (which was just a small sample) ... (sigh)--Random Replicator (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes:

  1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
    • (a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list:
    1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
    2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or
    3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. etc.........................................

[edit] Bloody Red

I have gone through and organized the remaining issues. It looks rather imposing; however, it is considerably shorter than it could have been since many of the prior concerns have been addressed. Any assistance or comments would be appreciated. I'm not myself certain that all of them can or should lead to changes in the article. That is for others to decide as well. Please turn the red N Not done to green Y Done --- if you consider the issue closed and I will quite stressing over it.--Random Replicator (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Summary Box

Overview version 2
Biological success is measured in an organisms ability to produce offspring.
The offspring will differ from their parents and each other in minor, random ways.
If the differences (traits) are helpful, the offspring that inherited the traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.
More offspring in the next generation will inherit the helpful trait.
These traits accumulate over time, resulting in changes within the population.
Accumulated changes may gradually lead to entirely new types of life.
This process, called Evolution, accounts for the diversity of life in the world today.

Played around with it some. Version 2 is the longer one. Either way... one or the other has merit (likely vers.1) and perhaps should be replaced. I would not have clue how to make it horizontal... not sure I would like it that way.--71.77.211.77 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RR.

Overview version 1
Life forms reproduce to make offspring.
The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways.
If the differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce.
This means that more offspring in the next generation will have the helpful difference.
These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population.
Over time, this process gradually leads to entirely new types of life.
This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today.

Shall i start? I prefer this summary box to the {{evolution3}} template. Who is the target audience, in my view someone that might well read only the overview box. If that interests them they may go on to read the text. The {{evolution3}} template works well to hold together the evolution series but all those articles are at a higher level. And that was the whole point of having this article in the first place, something that can be more easily digested. Possibly having a footer version of the {{evolution3}} template would be suitable for this article, assuming we have wetted are readers appetite for more, but up front is too intimidating, in my view. David D. (Talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be in a agreement of swapping the two and placing the portal at the bottom. I think the original loss was an effort to decrease the clutter. Can you pull it off and still retain the general lay-out? The format at present has never looked better. It does make sense to place links to other locations toward the bottom; from a selfish standpoint I would like them to stick around at least long enough to scroll through. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that the summary box is very similar to the introduction paragraph. Maybe the similarities suggest we are close to a good opening line .... finally!--Random Replicator (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Reinstate the summary box and put a version of the {{evolution3}} template at the bottom. Yes! Snalwibma (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I would make things complicated! The shorter; original version is fine with me.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer version 1, or even simpler if possible, as close to the top as possible. Putting other infoboxes as footers are fine since this is quite common on other articles and reduces clutter.--Filll (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview version 3
Having offspring is success in biology.
Offspring differ from their parents and each other in minor random ways.

Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr.
Some differences help and some do not.
Offspring with helpful differences are more likely to reproduce.
More of the next generation will inherit the helpful difference.
These traits add up over time and result in population changes.
Accumulated changes lead to new types of life.
This process is called evolution.

This simpler version, although with more boxes, removes some detail and big words. I can make it horizontal if desired.--Filll (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is horizontal preferable? It might be better to incorporate the picture and have it going down into the available white space. See addition of picture to version three above. David D. (Talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Overview
Having offspring is success in biology. Offspring differ from their parents and each other in minor random ways. Some differences help and some do not. Offspring with helpful differences are more likely to reproduce. More of the next generation will inherit the helpful difference. These traits add up over time and result in population changes. Accumulated changes lead to new types of life. This process is called evolution.

"Having offspring" is not biological success. The offspring have to survive to adulthood and pass on their genes. Amaltheus (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Version 1: simple - concise - works for me.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this template: [14]. Can we get a similarly shrunk version of the Evolution template that might be less disruptive?--Filll (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Three things I need help on.

  • I would like the summary box added before FA closes in case it does generate concern.
  • I cannot break the code on Items 4 and Item 5 in the "Line by Line List". They're legitimate concerns and I truly want a green check before FA closes. Comments to guide me ---- edits to just fix it. Understand that I am staying up way past my bed-time agonizing over these things. As a consequence, I wake up tired and confused. This has impacted my teaching in a very negative way. I am now a contributor to "The Educational Crisis In America". It is your civic duty to resolve this issue facing the United State of America.
  • Personally; I think we have made a good faith effort to address the others, most with a positive outcome.
  • This last is just venting: I am perplexed over the lack of regulation of "spamming" FA attempt sites. There are two critiques early on that have not responded; likely because they are too busy critiquing other FA attempts --- several an hour; day after day with broad damning comments such as poorly written or in need of copy-edited. Not their fault --- the system has failed here in that with guidance, they would likely be an asset. But poorly informed opposes and supports are disruptive and have a negative impact on the outcome; even if they're comments happen to be ignored by the FA director.I didn't want excuses if this thing fails.
  • Items 4 and 5 ... the clock is ticking as America continues to fall behind in the world academically.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
RR I think you are doing an incredible job. I am very impressed. I will think about the placement of the infoboxes a little.--Filll (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That {{evolution3}} infobox seems to be almost replicated by the current footer. i think we might be able to just remove it without any addition to compensate for its loss. David D. (Talk) 17:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are right and it should be removed since it is just duplicative and probably not needed. I tried again to merge the initial dinosaur pictue with the summary table and now have:


Triceratops and nest.
Overview version 1
Life forms reproduce to make offspring.
The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways.
If the differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce.
This means that more offspring in the next generation will have the helpful difference.
These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population.
Over time, this process gradually leads to entirely new types of life.
This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today.

I am not sure that the pixel size for the figure is reasonable. More blank space or rows can be left between the bottom of the figure and the "overview" heading.

We also have a blank space next to the table of contents where something could be put if necessary. Another figure? Leave it blank? --Filll (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another attempt

Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr. Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival.
Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr.
Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival.
Overview
Life forms reproduce to make offspring.
The offspring differs from the parents in minor random ways.
If the differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce.
This means that more offspring in the next generation will have the helpful difference.
These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population.
Over time, this process gradually leads to entirely new types of life.
This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today.


Ok I have done some playing around with the caption of the figure at the top of the overview table. I am not sure what is best. The long form of the caption is "Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr. Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival." When this caption was not centered, it became sort of discordant with the overview cells below, which had centered text in them. I wonder if the two parts should be separated by a carriage return or two: that, is put some vertical space between "Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr." and "Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival." I also wonder if a carriage return or two between this last sentence and the "overview" box is warranted so it does not look crowded; that is, put some vertical white space between the overview and end of the caption. I also wonder if the entire caption should be in regular text, or the second sentence should be in italics as in "Triceratops and nest by Karen Carr. Genetic changes between generations either increase or decrease the chance of an organism's survival." Should the second sentence have a smaller font? I do not think a different color would be good. Should the second sentence be left out? Comments?--Filll (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that I also put a border around the figure. Does it look better with or without a border?--Filll (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that we can change the width of this overview table by changing the size of the figure. I am not sure what size is best.--Filll (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Haekel's tree is also put in this overview table, we have room for that picture of Darwin as a young man. Up to you RR.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not the best choice to judge layout; I will go with the font, style and spacing that strikes your fancy. I do like the way it looks with the wider table and border. In regards to Darwin image: I complained about the demonic one on the Evolution page. The one you found was so much better. I would be thrilled if you could work it in without triggering a "cluttered compliant". Also, is a caption necessary to make a connection to the text? The brief Carr caption does not offer a connection to the subject unless it is intuitive between extinction - evolution - and the dinosaur, so I am leaning toward the larger image and more supportive footer for it. Although, you would think the connection between the image and the subject would be is obvious! Maybe an additional line: "Humans and this dinosaur never co-existed" to counter-act the mis-information being disseminated by the Answers in Genesis museum! --Random Replicator (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I put the part about the Humans and the dinosaurs never co-existed on the extended caption that is visible when you click on the figure and get all the extra information about the artist etc.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not perfect, but Haekel's tree is now centered. I also reintroduced the picture of the young Darwin, but now attached the flowers. I also put a division between the Haekel tree and the tree and the overview material. I am not sure about the background color behind the Haekel tree, which maybe should be white, but then it might not stand out. Maybe it should be a lighter blue or grey behind the tree. It looks like there is a bit more room for another figure below the tree, if we wanted to put another figure or other material there. Of course, we do not want to overdo it either. Comments?--Filll (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the tree might be too much. It seems to make the box too long and detracts from the important text in the overview. i am leaning towards the tree going back to its other location in the first section. Allough then Darwn will have to go again. David D. (Talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I guessing some one is saying "enough already", but it does stretch the box a bit. What if it was removed from the box, yet kept in the same location, couple of line breaks to separate it and narrowed up a tad so that the text is not so squeezed between Darwin and the tree. I hate to see Darwin surrounded in flowers go --- that was a stroke of genius.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We can try to shrink the tree if you are having problems. I will say that it looks fairly good on my screen.--Filll (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point that in many respects this formatting depends a lot on the browser size, so let's leave it as is. It's certainly not a disaster on my screen. I'm sure we'll here soon if it is unacceptable. David D. (Talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I shrunk it just a pinch to 200 px. How is that?--Filll (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Better, but point 2 is talking about sexually reproduced offspring in general. Bacteria reproduce, and their offspring may be identical to the parent. While clones may differ in minor random ways due to mutations this may or may not be accumulatable, so you should mention sex somewhere. Also, if it is sex, it has parents.--Amaltheus (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For this kind of overview or gentle introduction, extra complications or exceptions really are inappropriate. We have the same problem with this article in general, or the LEAD. We cannot be all things to all people here. That is why there is an article called evolution. Even there, there is argument that the LEAD is too general and does not cover enough exceptions and special cases.

However, if one insists that even 13-15 year olds (the target audience for this article) must hear the fine details suitable for graduate study on their first encounter with the subject, you will destroy the entire reason for the article's existence. We just cannot include all kinds of complications in the overview box. That is what happened to it before (version 2 above). People want to shove so much extra crap in that it becomes worthless. If you want detail, read the article itself. Better yet, read evolution. Better yet, read the references.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex is not an "overcomplication." It is essential. Cloning, bacteria, eukaryotic organisms, DNA are all overcomplications. Sex is 100% essential to the accumulation of genetic variation through time. This is not extra crap, this is not overcomplication, this is not detail. This is mandatory. That's how you get the variation fundamental to the accumulation of changes, that's the whole point of sex, that's the advantage to sexual reproduction, it's everything. This is nonsense without sex and parents. Amaltheus (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Errors of omission may have to be tolerated in a summary box. If it states "summary", then it is understood that there is more to the story. If a statement is incorrect or grossly misleading; then perhaps you can make some minor word tweaks here and there and fix it. Please don't feel that there is a barrier here that prevents you from offering a more accurate version that is of roughly the same length (its a small box) and does not introduce new complex concepts. I encourage you to edit away; that is why we put it on this page for input.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the word "parent" appearing in the overview box. Parent does not imply all that is needed?

I also agree with RR. If you have more accurate wording that is no more complicated and no longer, then please present it.--Filll (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) It's pretty rigid, and I can't think of how to make it nicer with the lead box. However, you can't discuss variation due to sex without saying sex somewhere. It is beyond grossly misleading. I hesitate to edit things because usually I get jumped all over by people for editing. My introduction to Wikipedia was a robot and an administrator jumping me for removing graffiti from an article. It has only gotten worse from there. Sex is MANDATORY. I can't make it any clearer than that. You are writing this article. I know if you take a breath and think about this, "Sex is MANDATORY," you will realize that it is correct, and omitting it is a serious error. I can't think of how to say it better. That doesn't make it any less wrong for it to go in the article like it is. You can't mislead and misinform, even when written for a younger audience. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


A quick look at the article now shows that sex is mentioned 3 times and reproduction is mentioned 15 times. That is not enough?-Filll (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also if you are afraid to edit the main page, edit here on the talk page. There are several templates here. Cut and paste and edit and lets see what you have.--Filll (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sexual reproduction produces offspring that are different from the parents in minor random ways.(+4 word))
  • Sexual reproduction produces offspring that are each different in minor random ways. (+2 words)
  • The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways. (current)
  • Sex is necessary (Errors by omission version)(- 6 words)

SEX IS MANDATORY!!!! Yes I have that same argument with my wife on occasions! Now it is a supported fact in Wikipedia Thanks for brightening my day! On another note, I was lucky and fell in with the right group of people which encouraged contributions; hopefully you will get a sense of that here. Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I still think that the present version is better. I think we do not need to belabor the "sex" issue in the overview box. I am open to hear suggestions from others however.--Filll (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sexual reproduction isn't necessary to the evolutionary process. Reproduction yes, not sexual reproduction. Most life on earth reproduces asexually, and it evolves. For example, super-bacteria have evolved. It is simply during the process of cell division where both mutation can occur and it's through cell division that the mutation is replicated. And it's either through selection or drift, etc, that there is an evolutionary result. Sexual reproduction brings unique opportunities to the process, that's all. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Further point--besides, absent those same two parts-mutation at the cell level, and its success in reproducing itself-sexual reproduction does not lead to evolution. It would merely be a highly variable reshuffling that would eventually lead, given enough time, to a 100% homogenetic population. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, a widely documented example of evolution is anti-biotic resistance in bacteria. Is this logic in line with your point User talk:Amaltheus or has your statement been mis-interpreted? --Random Replicator (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't discuss bacterial evolution except in passing, it emphasizes eukaryotes and the fossil record. To dismiss sexual reproduction by saying it "brings unique opportunities to the process, that's all" is to downplay the importance of variation in the offspring of sexually reproducing organisms to the theory of evolution by natural selection. It seems other editors are hostile to including sex in the boxes. I don't like an outline that implies, by the omission of sex, that random mutations are primary over reshuffling in providing variation in offspring for natural selection. I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. I am more used to discussions about teaching evolution where others' ideas are weighed and evaluated rather than hostilely and aggressively dismissed. This is not a beneficial technique for learning. I will not continue this discussion. There is no need to call others in to dismiss my comments from even different angles, the hostility to sex as a source of variation is evident. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. However, you can still propose your own wording as said above.--Filll (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss the issue because I like the article and I thought the little outline box was a good idea, but making it accurate in relation to the entire article, which is essentially about eukaryotic evolution, concerned me. You came off to me at first as hostile, with an interest in belittling me, rather than discussing improvements to the article and the text box. I agreed to back off of discussing the text box because of your hostility. You've decided to get in a few more jabs. This talk page should be used to improve to the article. Your reaching accusations (you dislike me so you accuse me of writing an article you think is awful? is that for real?) against me because you disagree with my ideas about the article serve no purpose other than to display the personal rather than professional nature for your hostility. As I have agreed to back off, maybe you can do the same and consider the readers of this article and their perception of editors who cannot discuss the issue, but rather resort to personal snipes. I thought an accurate introduction to evolution on Wikipedia was an excellent idea, and I really liked the way the article was going. I offered suggestions. You offer personal attacks against me, reaching far afield for them, apparently unable to offer counter arguments. This discussion page is not the place for this. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To repeat. I withdraw my suggestion. It is clear that the idea of including sex in the text box won't be considered, and that personally attacking me for bringing up the idea is fair game. I don't think this is appropriate. There is no need to attack me any more, or to bring up additional arguments, or to go at me from different angles. I have lost interest. I thought this was a page to discuss the article, where various and diverse opinions could be considered to put together a good idea. This is clearly not the case. I will leave all of you to wonder if I wrote bad articles about sex because I brought up including sex in the template. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This took a turn for the worse; but maybe there is a lesson for all of us here. Strong, passionate disagreement with an idea is fair; from either point of view. When several individuals lobby against you, it may simply mean you are incorrect. I have never seen anyone defend a viewpoint more passionately than you did with Darwin's Finches; it would be unfair to consider your strong disagreement as unyielding. But you do have to expect such passionate disagreements to be aimed back at you on occasion. I was attempting humor to lighten the tone ---not to belittled. Clearly that backfired; my sincerest apologies on that, I have learned a valuable lesson. As for my lack of tact - in a desperate effort to salvage this, maybe it was the timing. I have addressed a never ending list of concerns; debated over a single word for days; copy/edited and copy/edited. Unfortunately, I've become over protective to the point of being rude. I will take a break from this for a while. Maybe find a forgotten stub on some obscure fish to work on. I am very sorry. --Random Replicator (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with your comments. I do have a problem being told I have a "chip on my shoulder" and I write "gibberish." Anyone would have a problem with this. I am passionate about accurately teaching evolutionary theory. I like the idea behind this article, something I've not seen done in other encyclopedias. Amaltheus (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you are upset.--Filll (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you are interested in sex and evolution, you might want to help with Evolutionary theory of sex.--Filll (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sex is not mandatory for evolution, for if it was, how did sex itself evolve? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you are correct. Nevertheless, this whole thread entered the tar pit of weirdness long ago. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image changes

I think putting Darwin on the right side is bad because it ruins the numbering scheme below at some resolutions.

I also think that the overview box should have the text centered or else it looks bad, since the overview text is centered.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The double stack, still on the left hand side, still overwrites the numbers from the numbered list.--Filll (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I like Darwin surrounded by the flowers, nice of you to show his softer side!--Random Replicator (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text at top of page

I wonder about the text at the top of the page, directing readers to evolution and the Simple wikipedia article should be above the infobox and dinosaur picture, or alongside it?--Filll (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. The reason I edited it to allow the overview box go right to the top was to give it a little more room to prevent it bleeding into the fist section. Is there another way to stop it nudging into the first section? David D. (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a command to do that. I just do not know it off the top of my head but I have seen others do it.--Filll (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the text back at the top. I looked at a print preview of the article pages, using US letter, and there is no problem with the overview box going into the first section. This seems like the only situation we should be worrying about since the diversity of browsers and screen sizes is too large to accommodate every scenario. David D. (Talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separation

Is it ok to insert spaces, or a line break, or sub-header Editor Ownership or something between the dialog on the FA page as it relates to the editors behavior and the dialog that relates to the entry itself? It is somewhat confusing for the new reviewers as it stands who may wish to offer concerns about the article itself. It looks more like a WP policy debate than an FA on Introduction to Evolution. It is a bit overwhelming. I would hate to be the FA director searching for new perspectives that might get lost in that one, very, very long issue. Would anyone be opposed? Is it legal? --71.77.211.77 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) --Random Replicator (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin. moved it to the discussion page; which cleaned up the mess. That works for me. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution/religion

See the archived section above for much discussion on this topic.

An attempt to write a compromise paragraph can be found at the following page, User:Dweller/evol. About five users, who were also involved in the discussion above, finalised three sentences that I added to the first section of this article (as discussed at User talk:Dweller/evol). This paragraph attempts to acknowledge that there is a disagreement without it becoming a distraction from the scientific content of the article. It also attempts to generalise the controversey so that no particular religion is being discussed, rather the general concept of the differences are touched on. I would suggest that we can discuss this further on this talk page. I have archived the discussion above for clarity. And to focus the discussion in this new section. David D. (Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Group Barnstar

The Voyage of Discovery Barnstar
To the collaborators on this article, I award this barnstar for sailing harmoniously with a rogue stowaway, without making him walk the plank. May we soon reach our destination. May God bless you and all those who sail with you. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commented out Images

Whitetip shark (left) compared with the bottlenose dolphin

Above are all the images that were commented out during the FAR (go into edit mode to see the code). I'll leave them here in case someone else wishes to reinsert any of these. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow a lot of them. Some of them I like, but I am a big fan of figures, especially for an elementary treatment. I would favor putting some of these back, but maybe we should wait until the FAR is over.--Filll (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I liked the whale dolphin one, did it go due to redundancy with the limb figure?David D. (Talk) 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The picture edits were all about layout. I was never involved in that; but the intent was to generate a cleaner less cluttered page which is more in line with other FA articles. I think it looks excellent as it stands now. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hardy-Weinberg

I am still thinking about the Hardy-Weinberg section. There is a comment way up above somewhere that the function of the section is unclear. I suggested (up there) that it could be made apparent by an addition to the start of the section, something like In order to show that ongoing evolution is the normal state in most natural populations, a common starting point is to examine a hypothetical situation in which there is no evolution. But I fear my suggestion got swamped by recent discussions on other matters... Any thoughts? Would this be a good idea? Snalwibma (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardy-Weinberg and the extentions to the equation that work in genetic drift and effective population size are the mathematical backbone of evolution - they are the hard basis of our science, like the equations of relativity and Quantum mechanics are to physics. As such, it's good they're aware they exist. It's probably not so important that all the details are known - I've done an entire course on Hardy-Weinberg and related equations - but it's good to know that they exist. Adam Cuerden talk 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the original line from eons ago. To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it might be useful to consider the gene pool of a non-evolving population. A theory called the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" states that the frequencies of alleles in a population’s gene pool will not change over time unless acted upon by forces other than... I've completely burned out on that section.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

[edit] POV blaming of the press for Huxley's handywork

Resolved.

The article currently states:

Though Darwin did not explicitly make this claim at first, his friend and supporter Thomas Henry Huxley soon presented evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. The popular press of the day misinterpreted this as a claim that humans were descended from monkeys.

However, this flies in the face of Huxley's March 22, 1861 diary entry (or letter) promoting the idea that men were monkeys:

My working men stick by me wonderfully, the house being fuller than ever last night. By next Friday evening they will all be convinced that they are monkeys. ... Said lecture, let me inform ;you, was very good. Lyell came and was rather astonished at the magnitude and attentiveness of the audience.T. H. Huxley Letters and Diary 1861[Emphasis added]

I hope this helps. TableMannersC·U·T 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes from the year after the immediate debate, and is Huxley taking the mickey out of the popular misconception, though I'd agree it's not an ideal reference. If anyone, it was Owen's handiwork rather than Huxley 's. Owen raised the issue of descent from apes, and Huxley gladly responded. In fact, the debate was under way before publication of the Origin, but Owen was quick to bring it up after the book came out. .. dave souza, talk 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Even so, the claim that "The popular press of the day misinterpreted this as a claim that humans were descended from monkeys" is specious at best, and a red herring at worst.
I have doubts on the reliability of Charles Blinderman (Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology) David Joyce (Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science) as they are not writing in their area of professional competence-or-I have doubts on the accuracy of the article's sentences in relation to the Blinderman/Joyce citation. It is incongruous with Huxley's own words.
It is a distortion of the facts of history to lay the blame for misconceptions at the feet of the popular press.
Furthermore, it is possibly undue weight to emphasize this minutia. The question of whether humans descended from monkeys, or from common ancestors even more primitive than monkeys is a distinction with no real significance. The psychological effect of common descent on a peoples accustomed to believing they were created in the image of God is wholly separate from esoteric questions on whether monkeys are the cousins or forefathers of human beings. TableMannersC·U·T 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this entire statement be deleted in that it is no longer necessary. The passage that follows (recently added) serves to establish the notion that his book did not go without comment among the general population. This statement now seems to be just over-kill at best and clearly is a source of contention. If we over define it it will serve as a stumbling block to a reader. Delete... yes? --Random Replicator (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Darwin's view that life can be depicted as a tree and thus that all living things are related by common ancestry generated some controversy at the time because humans did not receive special consideration. Though Darwin did not explicitly make this claim at first, his friend and supporter Thomas Henry Huxley soon presented evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. The popular press of the day misinterpreted this as a claim that humans were descended from monkeys.
Problematic section was deleted; actually reads better without it. thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it is probably better too. I'll try to reread it a few more times. Many other changes have occurred. TableMannersC·U·T 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teeny weeny change

Hello. Thinking of the need for this to be accessible, I was going to alter "Prezygotic barriers prevent mating between species..." to "Prezygotic barriers are barriers which prevent mating between species...", and make the same change to postzygotic barriers, since I think it makes it clear that this is what 'prezygotic barriers' means, rather than it just being a feature of them. However, given the concerns with prose style and that the article is currently going through FAC, I am reluctant to make any changes at all! Personally I think the repetition of 'barriers' in the way I would rewrite it makes it clearer, but I'm aware it could make people shriek. So, I'll just write this overly-long description of a minor edit here :) Skittle (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity is why it was written ... Have at it!--Random Replicator (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch

I dont mean to offend anyone, but I am not sure it is a great idea, and probably contrary to the WP:MOS to state that the article is meant for junior high school and high school children in the first line. If nothing else, these phrases mean nothing in most of the world. Remember, we are not writing for the United States. And even in the United States, frankly this might offend some.

Also, I am not sure it is great to launch into discussions of RNA and DNA in the second sentence. I think we are heading for trouble, particularly when the previous LEAD was the result of a long process of consensus building over the past year.


Maybe we should consider redoing this a bit? I do not quite understand the motivation for it, to be honest. --Filll (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My motivation was the endless sniping that the article was poorly written and did not conform to MoS in all possible interpretations. So I was bold and tried to do something about it. According to various style guidelines, the article title ought to appear in the first sentence. The rest of the lead simply did not flow logically. Perhaps it was written by a committee but it also read like it was written by a committee. Mind you I'm no master of style, but I was motivated to improve the lead ...and the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I sounded too defensive. Please, please, edit and change my text with free abandon. As for the DNA bit, for some reason, the lead did not emphasize or even state one of the most important biological facts: all life is related. A real, honest to god fact of biology that in-itself refutes biblical fundalmentalists. Thus, the DNA bit should follow because it is by now widely known (thanks to CSI and other crime shows) by junior high school kids. As, for actually, naming the target, perhaps saying 14-year-olds might be more universal. The point here is to nail why the article even exists. This too is an important guideline of Wikipedia: articles must state why they exist. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the MOS states that the name of the article should be in the first sentence, hopefully close to the start of the sentence. However, I am not sure this an iron clad rule. What do the other introductory articles do? We can compare. And in this case, I am not sure that is so easy, however, I think in previous incarnations of the LEAD we might have done this. DNA I think kids will have heard of. RNA I am less sure about.--Filll (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps drop the RNA and other technical bits. As for MoS being an iron clad rule, who knows? The only FA quality example is Introduction to general relativity but it doesn't seem to be aimed at kids. At GA, this article is the only example. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than identifying a specific group; it should state the general purpose as it relates to understanding, "minimal background in biology ... or something of the sort. I'm not sure about being too confining to the audience by age or grade level. I agree there is merit in an explanation of why two separate articles on the same topic. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
'Minimal background in biology' might be the better tack because - I just checked - the article as it is written has a reading level of 1st year college/university/grade 13/6th form. The lead is worse as it scores at a 2nd year university in terms of reading level. Newspapers in comparison usually score at grade 9 (14 year old). The language of the article is dense. I am going to be chipping away at the reading level and doing my best in the style department. By the way RR, does the text sound way out of line for a junior high kid. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a small observation - this simple guide is not just useful for teenagers, but people of any age who find scientific jargon a barrier to comprehension or were taught badly, or not at all. I think many of our readers of all ages will find this a more accessible entrypoint to the topic than the more formal, longer and forked multiplicity of articles on the various topics surrounding Evolution. Personally, I'd just drop the reference to children/age entirely and make the opening sentence say that this is a simplified introduction to some of the key issues. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Species

Does anyone have a good reference for "However, speciation has been observed in several groups of organisms, including bacteria, round worms, insects, and fish, as well as in several groups of plants,"" Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where the addition came from. It might be difficult to support from a single source unless the contrib. knows where it was specifically found. It might be better to edit it out for now... a non-sourced statement like that will be the death of an FA attempt. Thoughts --Random Replicator (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of an easy way to determine when the sentence was inserted. Deletion is the best course. Although I do know of an example involving stickle back fish ...which might be easy to dig up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Patch. I've put a patch on the hole in the text. Needs to be cleaned up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. (1999-2004). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2008-01-20., includes a link to a more detailed article which has a supporting list. .. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive criticism: other minor concerns

  • "...he got the idea..."
  • I bet this could be rephrased for a more encyclopedic style without loosing any meaning.
  • Resolution: Rephrased using more encyclopedic langauge.
  • "Would Darwin review a manuscript that contained a theory of natural selection that was essentially identical to his own?"
  • Should this be in italics?
  • Resolution: Never needed italics.
  • Resolution: Rhetorical quesiton nuked.
  • "Since the origin of life, evolution has transformed the earliest life forms (the common ancestors of all living things) into the estimated 1.75 million different species living today.http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html How Many Species are There?
  • The number of species was not in dire need of a citation. That evolution turned common ancestors into all of these species would be a more productive reference. The reference does not support the assertion of the transformation power of evolution. Surely another pre-existing reference can be added to support this
  • The reference on the 1.75 million explicitly cites the United Nations Environment Programme's Global Biodiversity Assessment. We should also add the UN source as a reference if possible.

I'll keep reviewing, but I think these are substantive constructive criticisms. TableMannersC·U·T 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Should this be in italics?
No, it is a rhetorical device of asking a question that I know the answer to :-) Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know what a rhetorical question is. My memory was that they should be italicized, but I just checked and it appears I was wrong on the italics. However, I just added another bullet above. TableMannersC·U·T 05:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy violation

I removed two sentences that were lifted directly from a researcher's web page. Here is a quote and link to his research:[16]

"re recently I have been working on a mini-explosion of new species of threespine sticklebacks in lakes of coastal British Columbia, Canada. The species are among the youngest on earth and occur in lakes that are less than 12,000 years old."

Here's what we had:

"For example, Dr Dolph Schluter of the University of British Columbia is working on a mini-explosion of new species of threespine sticklebacks in lakes of coastal British Columbia, Canada. The species are among the youngest on earth and occur in lakes that are less than 12,000 years old."

Based on this it is my opinion that the entire article may need more carefully scrutinized for other copyright violations before it can move forward as a FA. This is because the text was almost two full sentence taken directly without quotes. This is a serious no-no anywhere, and I don't think I need to search the Wikipedia rules for others to agree with me on this. It may have just been done in a hurried edit, but this sort of stuff should be checked for throughout the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Also, of course, Wassupwestcoast may be Dolph Schluter who owns the copyright to the text on his website, but this doesn't appear to be the case from the user's page.[17] © 2007 Dolph Schluter --Amaltheus (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Wikipedia policy on the matter that I think bolsters my stated concerns that the article should be carefully looked over for other copyright violations before becoming a FA:[18]

"... material copied from other sources without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability but also create legal issues.

--Amaltheus (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that offends thee has been cast off. Any chance Wassupwestcoast, that you would consider taking the no doubt harsh response to his page? Please... --Random Replicator (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the sentences, so I know they have been appropriately cast off.
I don't think you should assume a harsh response. As I stated above it may have been a simple mistake, and there's no reason to harshly respond for making a mistake. I assume there are many other reasons for a mistake, and none of these require the sort of eagerness to pounce on another editor that you promote.
It's easy to copy and paste all over the place, and it's really easy to hit the Save Page button on Wikipedia. I'm sure that's why vandalism is so prevalent here-ease of use. --Amaltheus (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You talk of a simple mistake --- then type "sink" on the FA page! How much harsher can you be than that. Are you serious?--Random Replicator (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Amaltheus, you are helping us. Thank you. Yes, I did not format the text properly as is obvious. I double attributed (in the text itself) and in the citation and it should have had quotes too...but notice that I used the phrase 'temp text' in the edit summary. I did not mean the temp text to be anything more than a heads-up and temporary patch to the text until someone got around to editing it properly. I was half-asleep and amazed I was able to pull off such a good example without the aid of coffee. Everyone, please make this the best article possible and assume the best in everyone. I am hardly likely to copyvio when I so openly and transparently provide the link straight to its source and name the author. By copy right, fair use of a proportionally small amount of text properly demarcated and attributed and used in an illustrative way is normally no problem: truly a tempest in a teacup. Anyway, back to copy editing and revising. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wassup, your link was also broken, so it wasn't really as straight-forward as it would otherwise have been. I assumed it was just an editing mistake, though. In general, please don't temporarily paste unattributed text, though. Quotation marks without an attribution would have made the issue clearer, also. But as much as I get attacked by the editors on this page (and elsewhere and on all of your personal pages which seem partially devoted to me) it's not easy being gracious, even when it seems unlikely there was an issue beyond an editing error, and I have to protect myself first. This personal flaming and inability to lay off other people when you disagree is one of the most tiresome things about Wikipedia. It needs to stop.
Random, I think being extra careful before FA status is justified. The article does need thoroughly checked. Am I serious? Again, no need to get personal. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> What does "sink" mean? Is it a different type of oppose? Is it something we can correct here?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what will happen with the FA. I think a group effort this large deserves respect for all the other serious writers of Wikipedia. Sink means check the article for problems of this nature, additional copyvios, and it still means stop taking jabs at me or anyone else and act as if this were an interesting and topical subject worth writing about and as if there were (as there are) a diversity of views to the topic itself and to how an introduction to the topic could be written. By the way, the pictures are well-placed and well chosen, but plants were important to Darwin and replacing one of the other images with plants, might be good. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No jab intended... honestly had never heard of it. Is there an easy way to check for copyright violations? At school I use a plagerism services. I'm not oppose to clicking on every link to compare text. Would that resolve the sink. There are not that many references. Actually, other than a very few examples most of the text is so general knowledge in nature its not likely to be problematic. For example the list of Darwin's observation likely matches every biology book ever published. I'll do it; will get rid of the FA concern? I like the fish picture; but if we get the plant in there it would be a fair trade;-one colorful fish for a really cool looking plant.--71.77.211.77 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tweaking the tweaks!!!

I made some adjustments to some of the excellent ideas in the lead. We needed to avoid the vocab barrier that was in the first sentence. I like the opening line to the lead which provides insight to the audience as to the level of content. Good idea. If it would have been there earlier it may have served to guide some of the edits as well. Sorry about returning the list. I know it is taboo in Wiki; but every text book I looked at presents it that way. It is so much clearer; because it is both easy on the eyes and concise. I got an idea ... no wait I shall formulate an explanation ... well anyway maybe that is fixed as well. I reverted to an older version on Wallace; the question phrasing was so different from all the text around it. I like the transition line that someone added to lead into the book; although I changed Reticence; to something else. Sorry about all the tweaks to the tweaks! Has the number of species question be resolved with the added cite by Tim? As for the Species question above. I've treaded lightly on that in the past because it serves as a creationist magnet and I had hoped we would not bog down there. The observations in plants animals etc... that was added, clearly needed citations. I think the more toned down version I applied may be a better approach. If there are other specific examples, other than a fish that can be added; that would be great. I was so paranoid about criticism here that I actually emailed one of the scientist to review the section on cichlids to confirm accuracy. No need for an edit war at this point on speciation. When this is done; I recommend group therapy for all! --Random Replicator (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me copyediting a bit. The new first sentence looks to me like a good idea, just wondering if the statement "encountering for the first time the science behind those natural processes by which all species develop from earlier forms of life" could be improved. My suggestion would be to avoid the idea of science being behind the processes, and rephrase it along the lines of "encountering for the first time scientific explanations of the natural processes by which all species develop from earlier forms of life." BTW, you mean this isn't group therapy? . . . dave souza, talk 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Addressed. Wassupwestcoast with one sentence addressed a major misconception around the purpose of the article. Either version... the leap forward is still profound. As to group therapy; wait until all the night-owls wakes up to find that we've been accused of plagerism. Not seeing a group hug on the horizon! This reminds me of the Wizard of Oz... "ignore the man behind the curtain."--Random Replicator 15:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a small group of organisms that is well known in evolutionary biology for current research being done on speciation, including the sticklebacks, cichlids and the Hawaiian silverswords. They're so well known that most students and researchers of evolutionary biology would instantly recognize Professor Schluter's text. The sticklebacks are fun because the research deals with morphology, and the silverswords are interesting because of the insight into island evolution and the dispersion of their mainland relatives (mountains, oceans, volcanic islands all in one group). Any and all of these examples, because of the current level of research and interest, would be appropriate for an introductory article on evolution. Students who move on to study evolutionary biology at college will be sure to re-encounter the organisms. Pokes and jabs are best taken elsewhere. This is an article's discussion page. --Amaltheus (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How much better things would go, if the the statements above were not on the heels of a blazing allegation of "Sink" on the FA page over a last minute edit by a new contributor to this project. You are so right; these discussion should take place here. Productive insightful contributions are valued; add one of those above and see for yourself. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll stand by my contribution above without your implying that it is not productive nor insightful, and I should instead try to add a productive and insightful one above to see for myself. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your examples are GOOD add one of them... --Random Replicator (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Better yet; if you are aware of any involving plants that would be great. We could use a tad more botany. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The silverswords are sunflowers. I'm not much of a plant person, although I know the silversword researchers. Argyroxiphium. The fish are all more well known, but it might be nice to have the sticklebacks and the silverswords as current examples. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Speciation in plants has been observed in Silver Swords, a type of sunflower which is dispersed throughout the Hawiian islands. As the plants became widely distributed and genetically isolated by distance, the populations on each island took their own evolutionary pathway; a process referred to as adaptive radiation.

<refRemington D., Robichaux R. (2007). "Influences of gene flow on adaptive speciation in the Dubautia arborea--D. ciliolata complex.". Mol Ecol. 19: 4014-27. PMID 17894756. </ref>

Dorking around with it. References are so over the top in journals but I guess this ref, supports the idea as it relates to allopatric speciation. If would be nice to have a plant in there to go with the fish. If anyone is interested tweak away. Also trying to sneak in the word adaptive radiation... don't think its be used yet.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We're way to close to FA to start adding and moving images, plus so much hair has been lost over formating , but really is a cool looking plant.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are they dispersed "throughout the Pacific Islands?" Of the "Dubautia arborea--D. ciliolata complex," the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance page says both species (D. arborea and D. ciliolata) are endemic to Hawaii,[19][20] possibly even the big island only, are other members found on other Pacific islands? The group is called the "Hawaiian Silversword Alliance." I think the speciation is a discussion of dispersal to Hawaii, not across to the other Pacific islands. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly why they only let me watch! Although I did fair better by searching by a scientific name as opposed to sunflower. Honestly, I had never even heard of the damn thing before now. Going that road kicked out a ton of references; probably some that are more specific to speciation than the one I couldn't half understand. Look over it again; it is an excellent example; with tons of science to back it up. Clean it up and squeeze it in if you don't mind.--71.77.211.77 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a chance we can find a plant expert who could add this? I don't have time to read the research, and there is a lot. I'm not sure the above is perfectly accurate. Again, I think you're talking about two species that are endemic to the Big Island (Hawaii the island, not the state that is the group of islands). This makes the sentence wrong. Do you have the article? Can you e-mail me a copy? Is there a web page that lists all three that could be a starting point for what to add? --Amaltheus (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find a laymens page [21]. This one used Island(s). But struggling through the journals, the specific ones above are clearly on one island and apparently have vast boundaries of hybridization. Perhaps a botonist would be a good call. I found the cichlid expert on line to do the fish one; I'll try to email one of the researchers from the webs site on silverswords. I would very much like to get a plant in there and this one seems like a solid choice. I said somewhere up there; tread cautiously on speciation. Ninty-five % of this article is just rehashing any high school book; here however with specifics --- a tad different. If you get the time to look into it; otherwise I agree it is best to wait on a plant guy. RR--71.77.211.77 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why e-mail the researcher? Their articles and writing is not what we want, just their research as related to an introduction to evolution. Why not ask a botany editor at Wikipedia? A fish editor at Wikipedia? A taxonomist at Wikipedia? An evolutionary biologist writing on Wikipedia? At least start here. Another way not to alienate other editors is to assume there is competence at Wikipedia. There is. Ask one of the editors who wrote our article on Silverswords or the plant writers on Wikipedia. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

I have done quite a big tweak. Please review, amend, reject, comment on etc. as appropriate! Snalwibma (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's going overboard. How about "Introduction to evolution is an overview of biological evolution intended for the reader new to scientific explanations of the natural processes by which all species develop from earlier forms of life." Long sentences can, imo, have the opposite effect of drawing the reader in. This one detracts a bit, in my opinion. Simpler would be better for the lead. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks. I did revert you on No disclaimers in articles grounds. Also, the context of the article and the title Introduction to evolution should make it perfectly clear that this is an introductory article. Toward that end, I'd work toward jumping right into the subject matter, instead of disclaiming the article's lack of scientific sophistication. TableMannersC·U·T 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - point taken, and thanks! I agree, actually - and surely the line at the very top ("This article is intended as a generally accessible introduction to the subject" - generated by the {{introduction}} template ) is more than adequate as an explanation of how it fits into the wikipedia scheme of things evolution-wise. But I do think my addition of "This" to the start of the sentence is a good idea. We are, after all, referring only to this particular article, not to a concept called "introduction to evolution". Snalwibma (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I could not think of anything better than your addition of the word "this" so I left it. However, I am open to its removal if somebody comes up with an improvment. Thanks again. TableMannersC·U·T 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What puzzled me in your revert was that I didn't introduce the disclaimer, just edited it to try and make it make better sense. But we're much better off without it! Snalwibma (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you did not take offense because non was intended. It looks like the disclaimer is creeping back in. I'll go try to fix it, but would rather have somebody more skilled at writing leads do it. TableMannersC·U·T 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain I fully understand your concern about a 'disclaimer'. I do understand the concept but don't readily see the problem in the first sentence. A basic hurdle to cross is to establish notability for the article. Why is an 'Intro to Evolution' notable - whatever that may mean as it is often debated - enough to be included in an encyclopedia. In essence, the lead must establish the purpose and importance of the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I am a little uncomfortable with a first sentence that states "This article is about Blah blah". I think that we have to be more clever about the first sentence. I am in favor of a simple LEAD of course, and the present LEAD seems to be in general moving towards a more readable and accessible version, although I think it has a few mistakes and problems with punctuation etc.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took it out. See below. It may very well end up back in if I am not persuasive. TableMannersC·U·T 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding article title, vocabulary

  • Bolding article title in lead sentence: See Wikipedia:Lead#Bold_title The subject is evolution. Evolution is all that needs to be bolded.

The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations.[Emphasis added]

  • Dumbing down vocabulary: We should not be dumbing down vocabulary, e.g., replacing cumulative with combined and organisms with creatures. In the first case, cumulative is an English word used per its dictionary definition, and not technical. In the second case, we have an article on organisms, so just wikilink to it. TableMannersC·U·T 04:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am in favor of "dumbing down" the language. That is the purpose of this article. The simpler the better.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading level

I seem to have hit a nerve with reading level and 'dumbing down' the article. I want to point out that an important and long standing guideline of Wikipedia does emphasize that the article ought to be written for the non-specialist. The idea that a twelve-year-old should understand any Wikipedia article is not alien to the goal of the project. Please see Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Under providing context for the reader, there is this paragraph:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopædia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.

My own opinion is that Wikipedia articles should provide an overview of a topic while omitting the detail. They are not PhD dissertations or monographs. Picture the reader as a bright and literate twelve-year old. They can read well but not too well. They know more than a fifth grader but less than a university student. Many things are still surprising to them.

This opinion is not unique to me or Wikipedia but echoed in George Orwell, Strunk & White and numerous style guide. Dense technical writing is not good writing. Writing simply is not dumb writing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I indented the section because it seems very related to the previous section. It doesn't take a specialist to figure out what the word cumulative means, and the word organisms can be wikilinked. Otherwise, I see no problem with making this article accessible. Use wikilinks toward that end when possible, and don't dumb down the vocabulary to USA Today levels. TableMannersC·U·T 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Cumulative might be too difficult for most readers. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
For reference, this is the version I left before the USA Today edits.

Biological evolution refers to the processes that have transformed life from its earliest forms into the vast diversity that characterizes all living organisms today. Evolution is a result of the cumulative changes that occur within a population of organisms over successive generations. These changes occur within the hereditary material of the organism known as genes. Genetic mutations introduce new variations into the population. The environment will then influence which organisms are most likely to pass on their genes to the next generation and which will fail to successfully reproduce; a process known as natural selection. Thus, the interaction between the hereditary information in populations of organisms and their environment is the basis of evolutionary change. Over many generations, the process of the random introduction of new variations and the non-random processes of natural selection can lead to the formation of new species from ancestral life forms.[5]

Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't make this article elitist. If a reader of USA Today can not make sense of the lead without consulting a dictionary or clicking on wiki-links, what is the point? If you don't want to reach out to the USA Today reader who knows nothing about evolution except what their pastor has told them, then who are you trying to reach out to? Please note that the success of evangelical Christians is that they keep their message very simple. They translate Bibles in simple English. They don't spend time on obscure theological debates. They tell a simple message about Biblical creation that is understood by any twelve-year-old. If this article has any purpose on Wikipedia, it is to reach out to all those people. It certainly isn't written for me who studied the topic at university and has been a fan of Charles Darwin since a teenager. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is elitist to refuse to dumb down an article. Wikilinks are there for a reason, and so are dictionaries. A person in the eleventh grade who does not know how to use a dictionary will probably be going to simple wikipedia (http://simple.wikipedia.org). Regarding your comment "Please note that the success of evangelical Christians is that they keep their message very simple" true, but this is not a platform to counterbalance the church. It is simply to provide an introduction to evolution, I think, to people who are not familiar with evolution. It is not to provide an introduction to evolution to people who read at the seventh grade level. TableMannersC·U·T 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
TM I do not think you have spent much time talking to 12 and 13 year olds, or for that matter, the average person in the street. Most people are basically morons. This article is for them. For the others, we have evolution already.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the dove will do the trick --- must be careful with humor.RR --71.77.211.77 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Look up cumulative in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
I put the dove up there, and I hope it is not getting too heated. Anyway, I don't think this is the best solution, but it is submitted for consideration. TableMannersC·U·T 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I had this same identical argument when I was collaborating on the Book of Common Prayer article. Then and now, I am at a complete loss as to why anyone would want to alienate their readership. I am a fan of movies. I saw 65 movies last year at the theatre on their opening weekend. I am a filmoholic. Write an article at the USA Today level, and you will get the equivalent of a $50 million opening weekend. Write an article at a specialist level and you have the audience of an art house film. What was the last art house film that I saw on an opening weekend? Unless I visit New York City or LA, the answer is none. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is good, if you're looking to release a block buster, publish the USA Today. On the other hand, I think we should be leaning toward the Wall Street Journal's vocabulary level. The words cumulative and organism however can likely be found even in the USA Today, so my USA Today analogy was probably not the best. TableMannersC·U·T 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
TM, absolutely not the WSJ level. We already have an article called evolution for that.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to lighten the mood. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that. TableMannersC·U·T 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to get a bit weird; edit wars on style are bound to be really strange. Thank you for inviting a real expert into the conversation. The present post-scrutiny version scores about the 11th grade and seems good to me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you using for scoring? Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that. TableMannersC·U·T 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Its past my bed-time; one thing ... the word creature seems over-used. It seems some how --- not in flow; maybe too close to critter. A lot of readiblity has to do with clarity. Which does not always translate in the formulas which tend to use sentence length and number of letters in the words. Just a thought. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that creature is overused. And I think the term has connotations of being an animal (e.g., is a Mushroom a creature?) Organism or synonyms for organism would be much better. TableMannersC·U·T 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We should all go to bed before fatigue clouds our judgment. Because right now, I prefer 'varmit' instead of 'creature'. I do not know what the best word is to help everyone to understand. I use the readability scoring function built into Word 2003 and Word 2007. It uses standard validated scores. Of all general interest magazines and newspapers - that is anything on a newsstand - including the Wall Street Journal, I believe only Scientific American is deliberately set at a first year college level. The received wisdom of journalism repeated as a mantra is to hit a grade nine reading level. This is not well defined but the purpose is clear. Vocabulary is not the only factor that determines reading level. Certainly, there is something ineffable about clarity. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
USA Today aims at grade 8 reading level. It is about right I think. WSJ and NYT are way too complicated for this audience.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Awadewit on the new lead

I was asked by Random Replicator and TableManners to read the new lead. The reason for this, I think, is that I have done some copy editing and reviewing for this article, so I am somewhat familiar with the ins and outs of the article. Let me mention that I teach freshmen composition at the college level in the United States (which is basically like teaching high school English), so when I think to myself "could my students understand this?", that is who I am thinking of. I believe the writers of this article were aiming for an audience of high school students OR someone with that level of scientific knowledge. Either happily or sadly, my own personal scientific education is pretty much limited to high school and a few "genetics for poets" classes in college. I like to read popular science books, but as we all know, that is not real science. I can say nothing regarding the scientific accuracy of this page, since I've only read Richard Dawkins, but I can discuss its clarity and its grammar. I thought making my background clear might help out here.

I think that the new lead is an improvement in many ways over the old lead. It has a more detailed explanation of evolution itself, which is helpful since repetition generally helps people learn. However, I think that the wording and the sentence structure could be improved in spots.

  • Biological evolution is the natural process that explains the common relationship of all life on earth now and in the past. Evolution is a result of the combined changes that occur in a population of organisms over successive generations. - For someone unfamiliar with evolution, this looks like two different definitions. These sentences need to be explanatorily linked somehow.
  • All living organisms can inherit these changes because of genes. Molecules called DNA make up genes. - This is choppy - How about: All living organisms can inherit these changes because they have genes, which are made up of molecules called DNA.
  • Scientists call the new features traits and these are almost always very minor. - The focus of this sentence is the naming of "traits" rather than the fact that traits are minor. Scientists and their naming practices are not essential to mention in the lead, I don't think. How about: These new features—called traits—are almost always minor.
  • Scientists call this process natural selection. - Focus on naming of process again, rather than on defining of natural selection
  • Because of these different traits, no two creatures will do equally well in their environment. One creature may have trouble and produce few offspring. Another creature may do well and produce many offspring. - These sentences can probably be combined. How about: Because no two creatures have exactly the same traits, they will live and reproduce differently, some more effectively than others.
  • Over many generations, as the accumulation of so many new traits in a group of creatures seems so much different from its ancestor, people recognize the new group of creatures as a different species. - wordy - How about: Over many generations, many new traits accumulate in a group of creatures to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species. - Here it might be important that scientists recognize species - I'm not sure.
  • The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. An estimated 1.75 million different species alive today are all related to the first common ancestor that appeared when life first began. - This sentence has no home now. It needs to be integrated into a paragraph.
  • The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants. - This chronology sounds strange as the first sentence does not suggest a step-by-step chronology, but the second does.
  • The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics would provide insight into the source of variations in creatures. - Give a timeframe for the uninformed reader.
  • Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution. - Meaningless sentence - What research? What fields? Either expand or remove.

A few comments on reading level. I would discourage the editors from using USA Today as their model. As I understand it, it is written at a fourth-grade reading level. The New York Times, however is written at an eighth-grade reading level, which is closer to the 12-year-old that Wassupwestcoast wants to be able to read this article. While I applaud this goal, it is, in reality, very hard to achieve, particularly in science articles. Real scientific terms must be used in order to educate the reader - not using terms like natural selection would do the reader a real disservice, as these are crucial to the discourse of evolution. However, as long as each term is carefully explained, I think that the article will be readable by those who want to learn. It is never easy to read scientific texts and we all have to reread. Are there certain sections that people in this discussion feel are poorly explained or filled with unnecessary jargon? Those should indeed be rewritten. However, in discussions of this sort, we should always "go back to the text" as we lit crit types like to say. Let's look at individual passages and analyze them. :) Awadewit | talk 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I went through about 20 of these before getting approval on the former -lastest version --- Until we address each concern raised here; then I strongly suggest reverting to the one that did pass this level of scrutiny. We should then take the new version which has a strong potential to be better; drop it in a sandbox and chip away at the list. I know the list well. I respect the list and have no doubt it represents a mo better understanding of writing than I possess. I do not think we need to edit away on the actual page; this will scream instability and a lack of a shared goal. Wassupwestcoast; do you want to make a box? I'm sure we would will join you --- I'll even bring a shovel. I bet it can be perfected in a very short period. Then we can run it by again; and likely again ... but eventually it will be golden. I think this is fair .. Yes? --Random Replicator (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Totally a good idea. I will make the kitty litter free sand box. Go to User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox evo lead. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you move it to Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2? Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aim for as simple as possible.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I've made some edits in the sandbox. Awadewit | talk 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with filll with respect to the description of evolution. We don't need to give undue weight to esoteric details that do not affect an understanding of evolution. Significant details probably should be discussed (e.g., modern synthesis, per dave souza and Amaltheus). TableMannersC·U·T 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead suggestion

The lead sentence is bad. You have to have a style that engages the reader into the article in addition to writing at an appropriate level. You don't have to knock people unconscious with your lead sentence, either. It appears that a simple declarative sentence leading into the article is not possible (as usual, no one bothered to respond to my post, but I'm more than used to that by now, and it's one step up from calling me names behind my back!). This article is intended as an introduction to the scientific concepts behind evolution. This makes it different from the standard encyclopedia and the usual Wikipedia article. Alerting the reader to this, without disclaimers, seems to me to be a good idea. If it were not a special type of Wikipedia article, I can see arguments against doing this. But pretending it's a standard article when it's not isn't helpful. The lead paragraph is unreadable, imo. It has soporific qualities. IMO it's also bad to be too in love with sophisticated vocabulary, not just complex. This is my suggestion for the lead section, taking issue with some problems in the current one, elaborated below:

Introduction to evolution is an overview of biological evolution intended for the reader new to scientific explanations of the natural processes by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. All living things on the planet earth share a common relationship with each other and with all extinct organisms as a result of the process of evolution. Evolution occurs due to the accumulation of changes through time that takes place in a population of organisms over successive generations. All living organisms inherit these changes in their genes, which are made up of information molecules called DNA. Changes in these molecules, called (mutations), can become a new feature, or trait, in the offspring of a living organism. New traits in an offspring are almost always minor, but create differences in the members of a population that lead to no two members doing equally well in the same environment. One member may do poorly and produce few or no offspring. Another member may do well because of a unique favorable trait and produce many offspring. This process is called natural selection. Over time, the favorable trait will become more common in the descendents of the population. Over many generations many new traits may accumulate in a population making the organism so much different from its ancestors that it is no longer recognizable as the same species.

Traits are not "new features" because the old features are traits, also. The process is called "natural selection," it's not owned by scientists. The favorable trait only has to become more common, not common. Speciation doesn't require a scientist to recognize it. I see some changes have been added, since I went at this, I'll look at them. I do expect this to be completely ignored, so there's no point in reading the new lead before posting this. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Umn, I tried to incorporate some of your changes, and as far as I can tell, everybody seems to think very highly of your help (I know I do). TableMannersC·U·T 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Amaltheus, why did you cut and paste this section to here? The request for for another editor to move the proposed draft from his talk space to this article's talk space. TableMannersC·U·T 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. Why did I do what you requested? --Amaltheus (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you misunderstood me. I did not make the request of you. No problem. TableMannersC·U·T 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. It's another private conversation. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed my crap from you all's private conversation about the lead of this article. I'll try not to mistake this for a Wikipedia article again. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
These snide comments are not called for. It was a misunderstanding. Look further up on this page and it is pretty clear that my request was for Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs) to move a draft (including its history) from his talk space to a page in this article's talk space. You're welcome to participate before or after the move, I am sure. TableMannersC·U·T 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the only thing that is clear is the intention of the writers of this article to own it and own all discussion of it and exclude everyone who's ideas they disagree with or can't be bothered to read. That is ENTIRELY clear. Don't come back and tell me my snide remarks are uncalled for after dismissing my contribution as a piece of worthless shit that's simply in the way of you all discussing what you intend the article to be in a private venue where other writers can't contribute and are told they're not to. It's completely clear that I tainted the discussion by thinking that it was anything but precisely what it is: an ownership meeting for this article. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to chill out. I said no such thing. I agree that the discussion should be on this page or sub page of this page, not in some user's talk page. You're more than welcome to participate. TableMannersC·U·T 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph of lead

I can point out some problems but don't have time to do the rewrite right now, and it appears that following the request to post lead suggestions here was not for me-again the exclusive club of which any outsider suggestions are not allowed.

"Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants. His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[6] The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures. Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research. Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution. Evolution is the principal theory that governs our understanding of zoology, botany, agriculture, medicine, molecular biology, paleontology, taxonomy and any other scientific field that attempts to understand life."

Mendel's work on plants was contemporaneous with Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. There weren't great advances between the two publications, Darwin's book and Mendel's papers. His research did not lead to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance, later scientists studying inheritance and coming upon his research led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance and a great appreciation of Mendel. You should probably say population genetics in the lead, also. There was a hell of a lot of work between this discovery and Watson and Crick, like most of the scientific work done that gives us the way we study evolutionary biology today and the platform upon which our genetic evolutionary biology sits. The modern synthesis can't be left out. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Mendel was contemporaneous with Darwin. So perhaps "next step was" is wrong. But at this stage in the article I think it can be solved by something like "The next important step arose from Gregor Mendel's work with plants." No need for more detail in the lead section, I think. Watson and Crick, and what happened before them, and the modern synthesis, appear later in the article. Snalwibma (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Amaltheus for the helpful words above, and to Wassupwestcoast and TableManners for also helping to greatly improve the lead. Technically, the current phrasing is correct –

Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants. His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.

Darwin conceived of his theory in 1838, and published it in 1858 with the Origin then being published in 1859. Mendel began his experiments in 1856, and reported his observations in 1865, then published in 1866.[22] The results were rediscovered in 1900, more significant is their integration into the modern synthesis. I'll look at adding a little to The source of variation section, with that reference - it could be substituted for the simpler one in the lead, but that's pretty good for purpose. Anyway, here's my suggestion for improving the lead –

Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that led to the variety of organisms alive today and produced innumerable varieties that are long extinct. The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond the pioneering work of Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. The next important step brought in Gregor Mendel's research work with plants which helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance in the modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s.

"Organisms" is better than "creatures" as it includes plants, bacteria etc. – if that's to high a reading age, can anyone think of a better term? Your pal Dooniwestcoastoaniclyde, .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Add in modern evolutionary synthesis, will move that to the article for now. .. dave souza, talk 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisms v. creatures

Dave, should we simply do a search and replace on creatures/organisms? I think the use of the word creature is imprecise and possibly creationist rhetoric. TableMannersC·U·T 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did it. Now we may need to find synonyms for organisms if the word is overused in some paragraphs. TableMannersC·U·T 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's an improvement as critters doesn't hint to me that plants are included. It might be worth pinching the brief explanation from organism, (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism). Think that's important enough to put in the lead? .. dave souza, talk 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gentle warning to all contributors

Some of the discussion on this page is crossing the line from impassioned rhetoric into incivility.

I strongly urge all to keep cool and exercise restraint in editing while hot-tempered. Admins hate handing out incivility blocks to useful contributors, so I strongly request that each of you takes care not to fan flames or make comments that are not civil.

I also warmly invite you all to peruse WP:BOSTON TEA PARTY and help it to evolve.

Cheers muchly, --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A helpful critique from Amaltheus

Amaltheus provided a helpful critique at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. Since it's more usefully dealt with here, I've copied it below, and am in the process of implementing suggestions that seem useful to me. I'm interspersing my own comments, indented and in italics. Others may find it useful to do the same. Many thanks to everyone for cooperating on this, .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Some specific issues with just the first two paragraphs. There are plenty more:

"These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "

Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.

Good point, amendment made to suit. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientists call this process natural selection."

Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.

It's a name with specific scientific meaning, don't see the need to change but open to discussion. . dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."

The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.

Fair enough, done. ..dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"

Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.

Tried "new traits accumulate in a population to such a degree that the organism has changed and scientists recognize it as a new species". Better? .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"

Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.

Removed "According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated" and changed it to "and it is estimated that", source isn't needed in overview. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "

Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."

Been done. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. "

This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.

Happier with proposed phrasing above? .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."

He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."

So Darwin started >20 years earlier. Next is next, see above. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.

See proposal above. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"

This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.

See proposal above, "led" doesn't mean instantaneous. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."

This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.

Good point, adding in MES. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."

What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.

"Kind of" is still modern, and it's still in progress. See revision. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."

No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.

Revised to clarify. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I had been trying to work with the authors, but it's apparent the ownership issues won't go away. As I won't be allowed to discuss changes, my concerns about the quality of the article remain unaddressed. These quality issues arise because of the difficulties discussing the article with its various owners. This article is nowhere in the vicinity of the featured articles I have been reading on the main page.

--Amaltheus (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) PS I don't at this point care what happens to the article and will leave it alone, good or crappy. I cannot believe how nasty the editors have been to me and continue to be. Anyone can edit? Not a chance. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion on talk page. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Amaltheus was asked to join a group of the page's editors and myself on our revision of the lead of the article (he subsequently erased this invitation from his userpage), but s/he refused. See here. I specifically made an effort to invite him/her because I know s/he had felt excluded in the past. I agree with him/her that many of the sentences are problematic; in fact, I identified them as such just today on the talk page. We will be fixing them tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I was asked why I bothered to post to a discussion on the lead section.[23] Then I was told that I was not invited.[24] Then I was scolded by someone for getting ticked off at trying to provide useful changes to the article in spite of being mocked by the editors for a week. Then I got Awadewit's invitation. I think I will allow myself the utter incredulity that this was really an invitation. My comments about evolutionary biology stand regardless of this continued personal assault on me. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
These comments about ownership, "getting ticked off", "being mocked", and a "personal assault" are completely unjustified. I suggest that any further discussion of these matters should take place at User talk:Amaltheus.Snalwibma (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The user misunderstood a request to another user regarding exisiting discussion, and cut and pasted a new discussion that did not even exist at the time I made the request to the destination page. It was a simple misunderstanding (AGF), and I said as much.[25] And it has been affirmed that the user is free, able, and welcome to participate in the discussions, whereever they occur.[26] I personally continue to welcome the user and his or her participation, but do request that he or she desist from mischaracterizing my participation in this conversation. I am glad we are moving to more substantive issues, such as if or where to include modern synthesis. TableMannersC·U·T 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. I should stick with just problems with the article, and I will as my diffs are posted on the talk page to this, and really, incivility doesn't matter on Wikipedia.

With that dismissed, more problems with the article:

"Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"

"Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.

Darwin was working in a set of ideas that denied that they were ancestral, and while recognising that the fossils were much older, postulated that they were separate creations. Got a better, simpler word? .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."

This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.

And de Candolle, and others. How much historical detail do we put in this article? .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?"

Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.

Not a big deal to me, any others feel strongly one way or the other? .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."

It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.

Sounds sensible, will change that to "close" .. . dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."

Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."

Aren't the flowers themselves modified leaves? An expert rewriting of the sentence will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."

Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.

Darwin was too overwrought about the terminal illness of his son to do anything, and he put the matter entirely in the hands of Lyell and Hooker. .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't despair, we'll soon sort it if we work together, .. dave souza, talk 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2

Are we still using the sandbox for the lead revisions? Please, revise there and as concensus is reached it'll be added to the article. Also, rather than formulate critiques, actively revise the text. Everyone here is an equal and a volunteer. Don't make work for others. See a problem, fix it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it just seemed useful to me to use the critique as a checklist and implement the more obvious changes in the article. Do you want me to move the revised lead section to the sandbox for further discussion? . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please move the current lead to the sandbox. It is often helpful to centralize such a consensus building exercise off-site. This is true in the real world as it is on Wikipedia. Absolutely everyone is invited to my user space. Hash and bash out the lead there. I will delete the sandbox once everyone reaches an agreement. What is said at the sandbox will stay at the sandbox. The consensus text will be copied to this article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Per my previous comments, the lead should be discussed on this talk page, or a sub page of this talk page, and not in a user's talk page space, in my opinion. TableMannersC·U·T 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Until concensus is arrived at, the article's talk page tends to lead to drama. Amazingly, everyone tends to get down to work when people work off-site. Stick to the office and people are grand-standing in front of the supervisors and bosses. Go down to the pub...and voila....real work happens. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The same thing can occur at a sub page of this talk page. Also, I don't think we should nuke the record of the discussion, as you indicated would happen after Consensus was reached.[27] I agree that we should not grandstand and that we should focus on reaching consensus, I just disagree, and strongly, that doing it in your talk space is the right thing to do. TableMannersC·U·T 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, we are now squabbling over where to squabble. Serious dysfunction is happening here. If you want, I will copy the entire talk history into this page's talk archives at the end. I seriously do not care. I just want to facilitate team building not team destruction. However, people tend actually to work when no minutes are kept. It is called back-room dealing. When the cameras are rolling, people tend to spend more time attacking their opponents in order to inflate their position in the pecking order. Remember everyone is invited to play in the sandbox. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When you have all decided where this work should take place, let me know and I'll help out. I made some changes in the sandbox this morning. Do what you will with those. Awadewit | talk 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not disagree with your observations, Wassupwestcoast, regarding minutes and cameras etc. However, there are benefits to dealing with difficult editors (and perhaps you think I am difficult) in the open. Not only is the article improved, but contributors grow in their ability to work with one another. I think what you're advocating should be taken up at a policy level, e.g., removing histories from controversial article talk pages.
Awadewit, please don't take my disagreement on where these should occur as a disinvitation. Progress can continue to be made on the lead wherever it is, even if I (and as far as I know, I am the only one) think the progress should be made in the article's talk space, or a sub page of the article's talk page, and not a user's talk page. TableMannersC·U·T 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't view it as a disinvitation - I just want everyone to be working together in the same space. It is much easier. So, when this issue has been resolved (which I am sure it will be), I will be happy to work on the lead again. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I want everybody to be working in the same place too, and I view the work being done in the user talk page space as a division and distraction. That being said, I have been participating there, while expressing my view that the work should actually be occuring in the article talk page space. TableMannersC·U·T 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wherever it is, I will work on it. Lets have less inter-personal head-banging and more editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the first paragraph about a bit at Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2, now I have to go and count some bogs and write a talk for tomorrow. I'll check back this evening. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The sandbox has been moved to a sub-talk page. There are many paths to the sandbox via redirects. Everyone should go there and edit. Please. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've archived the sandbox, but it is still viewable. TableMannersC·U·T 07:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead as amended on article, 18:27, 2008-21-01

I've added a sandbox section Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2#Lead as amended on article, 18:27, 2008-21-01 with the suggestion that it be compared with the recently amended sandbox version, and differences picked out for comment. In my opinion each has worthwhile amendments covering contentious points, and it should be possible to pick out the best from each as a way forward. Will come back to this asap, got another panic to sort now :-/ . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see my requests for assistance did not go unanswered. Evolution Discussion Page. I had suggested the idea of a sandbox for the lead; frankly because for some reason it worked well on a prior controversial issue with a multitude of differing perspectives. Also, a series of reverts scream instability; which is not an accurate reflection on the article as it is only the lead and summary that are typically in flux. It seems to have worked. At least in that the lead is likely as close as it has ever been to meeting approval. Don't sell yourselves short on this accomplishment. The Main Article's lead has probably changed a zillion times over the years; so it is not surprising that this one, would also suffer similar growing pains. Compounded by the constraints of keeping it within the grasp of a less advanced audience --- which is damn hard to do. For what it is worth -I like the outcome. I am hoping that we can agree to have Awadewit take one final evaluation on the final version. You guys may know the science; but I trust we all agree that her skills exceed ours in the written word. I also note the ownership issue keeps re-emerging. All the edits made today were by contributors who have had minimal to no contributions in the past; so I welcome the new owners to the neighborhood and hope that you will invite other guest to come and contribute. Just have them look to the dove upon entering!!! Being told it is not FA is discouraging; I will argue with equal passion that the article has been improved dramatically since the attempt was made. Seriously, thanks for all the energy and patience. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made some more suggestions and edits on this version. More tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An impertinent question

I am beginning to have serious doubts about the need for this article on Wikipedia. This article is not supposed to duplicate Evolution. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. I know a couple of the editors actually teach adolescents. Imagine a simple experiment. If a teacher were to distribute randomly either this article or 'Evolution' to an average group of ninth grade kids, would there be a measureable difference in the two groups understanding of evolution? Note the greatest reading accomplishment for the average fourteen-year-old is to have read all of Harry Potter. Now, as it is, I suspect the two groups would show no statistical difference.

'Evolution' has about 9 000 words. 'Intro to Evolution' has about 6 000 words. 'Intro to Evolution' is no more generally accessible to the understanding of evolution than the main article is. For example, the main article does not mention 'Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium' at all while 'Intro to Evolution' has a whole sub-section. The math concepts of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium - statistics and combinatorics - are not taught until twelveth grade math.

The reading level of the two articles is the same. I compared the 'speciation' and 'species' sections ('Evolution' and 'Intro to Evolution', respectively). Both sections are written at an advanced college reading level.

I wonder if the proper Wiki space for this project isn't at Wikijunior. This is not intended as a slight. The Wikijunior articles are meant for middle school kids and are written at that level. If one wants to ensure that a large number of people have access to a generally accessible article on the topic of evolution, then that is the audience that must be reached.

Either way, the two articles must differentiate themselves. I don't see the difference.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm becoming more alarmed as I compare the two articles. 'Intro to Evolution' article has the words 'Prezygotic' and 'Postzygotic'. 'Evolution' article does not nor does it mention 'fertilization'. As I read the two articles, I think this article ought to be merged into 'Evolution'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion over purpose here. My understanding is that this article is an introduction to the subject, and I support this. The purpose is not "Evolution for seventh graders." Adults as well as adolescents should find this article useful. TableMannersC·U·T 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wassupwestcoast, do you think the problem is: 1) it is not possible to write an "introduction to evolution" article and thus this entire article and its concept should be scrapped or; 2) the current article is too sophisticated, but it is theoretically possible to make it more introductory? If the answer is (2), I suggest that you work with us to do so, rather than suggest a "merge". Let us try to fix what you see as potential problems here before we consider something as drastic as a "merge". Awadewit | talk 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also direct everyone here to Markus Poessel's excellent essay Wikipedia:Many things to many people which he wrote while working on introduction to general relativity, another "introduction" article. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the main authors of the evolution article, there is not much in this article that isn't covered in the main article. The major point of difference is the section on "Evidence for evolution", and this is covered in the sub-article Evidence of common descent. Merging would serve no useful purpose. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not abandoning the article. I do believe "2) the current article is too sophisticated, but it is theoretically possible to make it more introductory?" As I compare the articles, I do see two articles on the same topic that do not differ in intent or scope. I think the article has suffered from the experts and their expertise creep. For example, 'frequencies of alleles' is way over the top. Even in a medical research lab, we rarely use the word 'allele'. Oh, I understand it very well but I think I used 'allele' in a conversation sometime before Christmas. Of course, it is not a medical genetics lab. This is specialist jargon that does not help the article. I think the whole thing has to be 'dumbed' way down. Darwin did not need genetics, nor sophisticated math (neither statistics nor combinatorics were developed), nor dense language to explain Natural Selection. The man used pigeons. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is more than word count and readability formulas:

Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[21][22][23] These mutagens produce several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that about 70 percent of mutations are deleterious, and the remainder are either neutral or have a weak beneficial effect.[24] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[21] Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between short-term costs, such as the risk of cancer, and the long-term benefits of advantageous mutations.[25]

This paragraph is not the exception --- its the norm. The use of the word allele here is small potatoes compared to the thesis next door. They now have the freedom to throw out tons of science jargon without concern because this page exist. Read the Evolution article again. Not in regards to word count or sentence length but in regards to the amount of prior knowledge required. Meiosis? Transpsons? We all need this one. Not as a dumbed down version for 6th graders but as one that is reasonable for a general public not steeped in science. RR in case I'm notlogged in--Random Replicator (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No criticism to their efforts; but "fecundity"

These traits are said to be "selected for". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival, and increased fecundity. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele becoming rarer — they are "selected against".[2] Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic, if the environment changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful.[1].

Please read the other version again. I feel good about this being middle ground; their is another version on simple wikipedia for even lower levels. There was a proposal to delete; archived above which also demonstrated overwhelming support for keeping this --Random Replicator (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This the actual paragraph that sparked me to join Filll's team:

:Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in the offspring generation are a random sample of those in the parent generation, and are thus subject to sampling error.[17] As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward in a random walk. This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone, and two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure can drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.[56

Can't support a merge and frankly don't see a need to dumb down this version to the point it would be insulting to someone just trying to get a grasp on the concept. We need clear concise defintions of the science terms; we can assume reasonable reading abilities and mastery of general terms like organism. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that someone who thinks this article and evolution are written on the same level is not reading carefully enough. I AM in favor of making this one simpler if possible, but I have watched it over the past year and there are constant pressures to make it more sophisticated. Constant pushing. Inexorable efforts. Even the lowly infobox suffered from infobox inflation and turned into an unreadable mess (Thanks people...)
One or two editors here on these pages flew into cursing rages when their favorite concept was not dealt with. We have some opposes from people who are unhappy that the article is not longer and more sophisticated and more complicated and does not include more material.
I respect some of these people, but they are not quite understanding what the purpose of this article is. They are forgetting that there is an article that answers their needs already. I am just stunned when I hear these complaints from them.
There are huge pressures to make this article more advanced and more complicated. I would like to resist those if at all possible. I have seen people badger us because they feel that the LEAD paragraph or LEAD sentence is not precise enough, is too general and our current LEAD is written for simpletons.
However, that is the purpose of this article. If you want an article that requires a graduate school education already in biology, go to evolution. That is not the purpose of this article, and should not be the purpose of this article, and never was the intended purpose of this article.
It is very disappointing to me, but I think that if we just politely tell the people who are trying to bully us to bugger off, and not really give a damn if they support us for FA or not, that is the right course of action. I do not really care if we get to FA. I do not really care if we are GA or not. I care if we provide a useful resource for readers. That is all.
And if that offends some of you, then too bad. I do not give a damn. You have forgotten the entire purpose of Wikipedia and your input is not really welcome. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, this article is much simpler, but still needs to cut down on technical terms. ps any more bits in the evolution article that are particularly complex? I'm fixing them as we go along! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity of content - avoid the need to detail every line. Accept that some information is best explained elsewhere. Fillls correct, it is not the vocabulary that is swinging us into the wrong direction its an unwillingness of editors to tolerate generalizations. Case in point ... Darwin developed his theory --- well no actual Wallace did as well --- well actual he was inspired to co-write --- well --- one simple generalization became a thesis. Simplification here is not about vocabulary; organism -- creature --- makes no difference; its about the obsessive need to defend each line against allegations of inaccuracy. Readability formulas do not show that. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE. Sorry Tim --- that is not meant to be offensive. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My ranting aside --- I still think you guys did a hell of a job on the lead!!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No offence taken, I did have a slash at the pieces of evolution you guys highlighted, thanks for the feedback. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I think that when I look at the LEAD, it is far too complicated. Far far too complicated. I have started making a simpler LEAD, and maybe we should look at previous versions of the LEAD. I find it funny that some of the same people who created this Frankensteinian complicated LEAD are complaining that it is now too hard to understand and too advanced. People, I really don't care if this covers every possible detail. I do not want to belabor Wallace's contribution, or Mathew's contribution 20 years before that, or Erasmus Darwin's contribution, or on and on and on with dozens of precursors to Darwin, for example. We could make a 2000 page book just on that detail and being precise about who came up with the idea for evolution. But that is not the point. Who cares?

This is for someone's first look. And certainly up through the middle of college, all you need to know is, Darwin did it. Period. You dont need to know more. That is all. Darwin. No more.

Also, in this article, you dont need to introduce RNA. You dont need to use big words like taxonomy. You dont need big words like paleontology. The word botany is unnecessary. So is the word zoology. This sort of nonsense just ruins the article. Get rid of this kind of crap. If you want to impress me with your prolixity, I am not impressed. Believe me, in a circumlocution contest, I will destroy any of you (except maybe our graduate student and college instructor in the humanities). That is not the point here. This article is for people just learning. Keep it very very very simple, and very clear, even to the point of oversimplification and overgeneralization, especially in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I am not sure if we disagree or agree, but first things first. Is this an article for seventh or eleventh graders, or is this an introduction to the subject using standard wikipedia style. I think the later. I do agree that we don't need to explor every esoteric peice of information and should instead avoid minutia whenever possible. TableMannersC·U·T 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote my objection, I did feel like a real jerk because technically the article is sound. Random Replicator, and everyone else, I know that readability scores do not tell the whole story; they are but a surrogate. It is not about vocabulary; a twelve-year-old can give the scientific name of a dozen dinosaurs. The problem is not with Wikipedia style but duplication of articles. This article is not an introduction to the main article; it is competition. The audience for this article is one who find the main article incomprehensible, and finds the explanation of creationists simple. Darwin didn't need a lot of technical props to describe his theory. I think the best way to tackle evolution for the uninitiated is both to emphasize the relationship of everything, and to emphasize the make-shift jerry-rigged adaption of all life. Stories about the imperfections about the natural world were used by Darwin himself as a counter to divine creation. Of course, we have that already in the article so the article isn't far from perfection. Just a bit more editing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a need for an introductory article on this topic, as on a number of other complex topics. I would be very dismayed to see it merged with Evolution. This introductory article was once (a year ago) nice and short and simple, and told a story (admittedly an oversimplified story) fairly clearly. Then lots of people came and took a look and said "oh, that's not quite true" and "if you mention (a) you really need to say something about (b)" and "this is slightly misleading - add an extra sentence here ... and here ... and here". Which isn't by any means to say that these sugegstions are not welcome. They are very welcome indeed. But the result is that the article suffers from fact-stuffing and ends up over-complicated and unreadable. I would urge anyone editing this article, or commenting on it, to bear in mind the importance of keeping it distinct from Evolution, and to maintain its introductory status. I don't think that means using baby-language and shying away from technical terms, but it does mean sticking to the key elements of the "story" and making sure that technical terms are explained or linked to places where an explanation can be found. If certain things (including people's pet topics) get skated over and simplified, that's just too bad. Snalwibma (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second warning

I repeat the advice I gave higher up this page.

Dispute surrounding this article is heading towards "disruption", at which point good editors can earn themselves blocks.

I'm particularly dismayed to see that the level of debate has descended in places (not necessarily here) past incivility to the unpleasantnesses of personal attack, which is of course, utterly unacceptable.

No-one has to agree on anything. Just debate your differences reasonably or leave them as differences. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead first sentence

The first sentence of the lead now is: Evolution is the process by which organisms change over generations. Organisms are individuals; they do not have generations, hence cannot change over generations. Evolution is not a process: it is a result. Natural selection is a process. Hence "evolution by natural selection". So try this instead: Evolution is the result of changes that accumulate within lineages of organisms. --Una Smith (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist and don't understand what "lineage" means in this context. There's a lineage of succession of Kings and Queens of England... what's a lineage of organisms? Do you mean, for example, that organism a that lived y million years ago evolved into b which in turn evolved into c? (that's my guess, but my lack of certainty implies it's a bad choice of word). --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you up to a point, Una. You could indeed say that evolution is a result rather than a process. And you could also argue that it's not an organism but a succession of generations of organisms (a lineage of organisms) that evolves. But surely this is all too subtle. The Collins dictionary says that evolution = "a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations". Is that "gradual change" a result or a process? It could be either, actually. And can't we allow organisms (in the plural, note) to stand for a succession of generations of organisms? I think the proposed rewrite is unnecessary (based on an over-pedantic analysis of the language), and I find it obscure and hard to understand. It raises more questions than it answers (What is a lineage? What changes are you talking about? If evolution is the result, what is the process?). I reckon Evolution is the process by which organisms change over generations is just fine. Or maybe amend (if amend we must) to something more like what the dictionary says: Evolution means a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations. Snalwibma (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Bear in mind that this is an introductory article. It does not have to be extremely detailed or specific. When people attempt to make the LEAD sentence or the LEAD of this article (or for that matter, evolution) extremely precise and include all the exceptions and counterexceptions and complications, the LEAD is destroyed, and it becomes unreadable. Leave the later details for the body. Or in the case of this article, leave them for evolution itself. One can look in the history and see how this happened here over and over. The infobox changed over time from a fairly straightforward description to something unreadable, and still others wanted to shove more into it. We have to err on the side of being imprecise, to preserve the accessibility. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Accessible nonsense is still nonsense. The article has to be correct. It is incorrect to say that an organism evolves. Evolution is a process is both overly precise and incorrect, because evolution is not a process. Evolution means a gradual change is better except that evolution is not necessarily gradual; the phrase reduces to Evolution means change. Animals or plants is overly precise, omitting the majority of the world's known species. Etc. How about In biology, evolution refers to change in the traits of a population of organisms over generations. --Una Smith (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course an organism doesn't evolve. But that is not what the lead sentence says - it says that "organisms change over generations". And on what basis do you say that evolution is not a process? But in any case your new version is just too complicated and hard to follow. As Filll says, this is an introductory article. Inevitably, it will (nay, it must) blur a few fine distinctions. Rather than absolute accuracy in every detail, it's a matter of finding the balance, and of being accurate enough. Snalwibma (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Evolution is not 'refering' to anything; to be precise. Evolution is something; either a result or a process. As for detail and correctness, the DNA of an individual cell (the genetic individual) can change over its life time. A stray cosmic ray can change the reproductive genotype of a male. Nevertheless, this level of detail is silly. We need to concentrate on simplicity and not on the illusion of correctness by ever finer detail. To the beginning biologist, the world of life is divided between plants and animals. To the professional biologist, life has how many kingdoms? What about lichens? Remember this article is an 'Introduction to Evolution' meant for a reader who will be surprised by many new ideas. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I've changed the lead sentence. It is simpler and I think meets the objections.

Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations

I've inserted 'natural' to distinguish it from 'supernatural' processes.. I've changed 'organisms' to 'all life' to paint with a broad brush that will cover all understandings. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent (IMHO). I think that change is just right. Snalwibma (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Simpler is better. And I agree that most of our readers will just know about plants and animals; nothing else. These other things are details that can be exposed later as they understand more.--Filll (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I still don't like it. Darwin's The Origin of Species is not about evolution per se but about evolution by natural selection. And recall that in order to illustrate his concept of natural selection, Darwin devoted much of the book to well known cases of artificial selection: dog breeds, pigeons, etc. Natural selection and artificial selection are just two of several processes that can result in evolution. Arguably, "Creation" is a third process (if it exists in its own right, independent of these other processes). --Una Smith (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big shout out

...to any grammar mavens who can give the thumbs up to the lead and summary. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Further reading

I've changed the 'further reading' list to ten recently published popular works that are readily available. Nothing is older than 1996 and all are from major publishers. All are likely available at any public library. On Wikipedia, a further reading list / bibliography is not recognized as a 'source' list. The sources must be inserted into the body of the text. However, a 'further reading' list is not a list of sources. It is a resource for the Wikipedia reader who wants to go one-step further than this article. What is the next best text to read that covers Evolution for the beginner? This is what 'further reading' lists are intended to do in print encyclopedia. Certainly, no one beginning their masters in biology is going to be reading this article and locating a pertinent monograph from our 'further reading' list to flesh out their thesis. Our most likely reader ought to be an adolescent. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HW equilibrium

I have edited the introduction somewhat [see section at top] to make the text more precise and accurate. I strongly recommend that an administrative editor review this and substitute it for the introductory text in the article. Evolutionary scientist Steven (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is an 'Introduction to Evolution' and discussion of gene frequency shifts is a complication to understanding. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it really though, since we have the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? It seems to be representative of the level the article is at present. And it introduces content in the article which is the role of the LEAD. Plus, evolution does not happen without change in allele frequencies so it could be viewed as critical to an understanding of evolution. That is why we kept HW, i assume? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The presence of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium should not be here at all but in the Evolution article. The math concepts of statistics and combinatorics are not introduced until the twelveth grade. Readers with simple math skills will find it a barrier. This whole article must be a simpler version of Evolution. If it is not, then - to repeat myself and other editors - why does the article exist? We must keep it simple. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but while it is still in the article don't you think the lead should have a nod towards it? David D. (Talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Above the line I shifted down to the bottom here in this new section. This is going down the route of "should this article discuss HW equilibrium". Can someone quickly summarize the rationale for adding and keeping this section? Or removing this section? David D. (Talk) 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised to see H/W in an introductory article. I was only introduced to it at university as an undergraduate. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Nevertheless, I'm interest to here the rationale for why it was added. I don't know when it was written or who wrote it? David D. (Talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I included it because I teach it. It is in every high school text; even the water-downed versions. [28] This is the chapter outline from a widely used high text. Sorry you missed it Tim --- think how far along you would have been if you had a godly high school teacher like me! (Just kidding) Delete it --- I really don't care. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What about moving it to the main evolution article? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've not the courage to go there. But you are welcome to it! --Random Replicator (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way for those keeping up with the betting board: 11:5:1  :) --Random Replicator (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy to see H-W vanish. I know why it is there (RR has explained, and it did indeed seem a logical step in a story several months ago) - but it can go. Very little would be required other than to chop out the section headed "Hardy-Weinberg". Just a little tweak, perhaps, to the start of the following section ("Changing gene pool and genetic drift"). Snalwibma (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the HW equilibrium. If you decide to chop it, we can grab the article and turn it into a smaller article on HW equilibrium, or merge it with the current HW equilibrium article, or something. I think it is great and makes the article more accessible to us quantitative types, as well as qualitative types. 65.116.187.190 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think it ought to be in the main Evolution article. I too think it is great being a quantitative type myself. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ITS GONE --- problem solved. May need a transition between sections. If you wish to delete speciation barriers let me know. For those of you who never heard of these concepts in high school --- I hope you were not taught in the US. Just look at in general biology book. That aside --- the mandate was to introduce not overwhelm -- so fair enough. :) --Random Replicator (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT gone ...well, gone from here. I've placed into the Evolution article where it seems to fit OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Good we don't want to lose good stuff. With respect to speciation barriers may the major issue with it is undue weight in the article? Reduction rather removal would be my preference if it is changed at all. David D. (Talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)