This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
poor choice of section title: What Evolution Is Not
To have the very first section be so negative is not a good thing. All the bold stuff comes across as if its intent is to challenge rather than inform. I want to take away the negativity.--Neptunerover (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
For someone to think this section is really about what evolution is not, is for them to be mislead. It contains no details about that which evolution is not: It makes 3 short statements of what it is not, and then all the details pertain to what it is. Therefore the section title should be 'what evolution is'.--Neptunerover (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes SNALWIBMA, that's a good compromise I hadn't considered. 'What it is and is not'. Very clear, like we're laying it all down, not just this or that.--Neptunerover (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The picture of dog breeds as an example of evolution
This entire article is pure crap, but the dog breed picture has to go. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, doggies are nice; What's your problem? They got to you didn't they? I knew it, they're infiltrating all levels now, those creationist radical know-it-alls, trying to expunge all information about evolution from the human knowledge base.
Besides, you're not being constructive: you need to put something back when you take something away (especially a picture!).--Neptunerover (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
So, if someone adds a picture of a Barbie Doll to an article about the New Orleans Saints football team, discussing only Barbies in the caption, and never in the team article, and I remove Barbie, you will return it unless I add another different picture to the article?
The article doesn't even pretend that breeds are within the scope of an introductory article on evolution. The word "breed" is used only within the discussion of species. And breeds are not species. Don't put any picture that is handy in an article, just because there isn't one. Put in a picture related to the article. Or don't put a picture in.
It's just the crown of the confusing crap making up this silly article about nothing. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't call my edits vandalism, when I've clearly explained them. It's not vandalism to remove a false unexplained image that bears no relation to the article. What is vandalism is what you just did: insert miscellaneous crap into an article.--IP69.226.103.13(talk) 05:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Pictures make articles more inviting to readers. Especially doggies, though perhaps not so much as Barbies, if that's what somebody's into. And who made you god of the article anyway? A whole lotta people have worked on this article, an many people are willing to work on it more. If you're sick of it, um... go away?--Neptunerover (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
If you're sick of accuracy, um, go away from the encyclopedia? That's about the equivalent to you that you said to me. Should I undo your edit and call it vandalism? Of the two, my edit improved the quality of the article and encyclopedia by removing inaccurate, unexplained crap, while yours admitted inaccurate, unexplained crap into the article. By definition, I'm afraid your edit is vandalism, not mine.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course I didn't mean go away from the encyclopedia. I just meant that there are lots of other articles. If the sight of those dogs make you that mad, then taking a break from them could be healthy.--Neptunerover (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
They don't make me mad. They make the reader confused. My taking a break won't make the reader less confused. See my suggestion below: elephants are every bit as cute as doggies, although a lot larger. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not understanding the problem here. I think you might be the confused one. The dogs were bred to look different. This means that the dogs EVOLVED in different directions. Yes, it was guided by humans through forced breeding, but it's still evolution. How is a great picture example of the effects of evolution that not relevant to this article? Frankly, from what I can tell, you just appear to be trying to downplay the effects that evolution has on the animal kingdom, first removing the picture entirely and then when that didn't work, trying to change it to a picture in which the differences are far more subtle than in the dog picture. The subtlety of the elephant picture would make things far more confusing to a casual reader.Farsight001 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
But dog breeds are not evolved. The genes that code for the highly evident differences between breeds were already there, they just got selectively shuffled around by breeders so that they became apparent in the animals' appearances (from what I gather/I'm no scientist). I think this is the problem with the dog breeds concept being used.--Neptunerover (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hunh? That still qualifies as evolution, though. So I completely fail to see your point.Farsight001 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Dog breeds are evolved, Neptunerover. We know because we evolved them ourselves from ancestral wolves. No, the genes that code for excessive skin folds on the pit bull's face were not always there. No, the genes that code for any of the modern characteristics at the extrema of each breed were not there. Those genes have been built by selective breeding, a form of evolution, specifically because they did not exist as we desired them. Even if I assume good faith, you are still the most wrong anyone ever was. That said, I support a non-dog picture as two different breeds of modern dogs do not evolve one from the other and may give a misleading "crocoduck"ish impression. I would much prefer to see an ancient teosinte bush side by side with a modern variegated sweet corn stalk.76.185.32.199 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Article in general, dog "breed"picture
Evolution is how life changes over many generations. All dogs once looked alike, but groups of dogs have branched off and evolved over time to become very different breeds.
This article is about species. The article about breeds does not elaborate on species, but it does establish firmly that animals of different breeds belong to the same species. This article does not elaborate on breeds. Why is there a picture of dog breeds as an example of evolution?
The picture is bad. The article is bad. Removing the picture won't improve the article. Leaving the picture in confuses the reader even more than reading the article, however, and, as an initial courtesy, it should be removed.
However, that editors of this article are willing to falsely call any edit that improves the article by removing a misleading image, unexplained anywhere on wikipedia, "vandalism" simply shows the necessary level of malice required to keep an article this bad before unsuspecting readers who may think they'll learn something about evolution by coming here. They won't.
At least stop making the article contradict everything it's wikilinked to. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Today is the first day I've ever edited this article. I can see that the article is not what it should be, and I am willing to help. I believe something can be put in the article to make the picture relevant, and I think it could be useful in making a point about selection. Not everyone has been here as long as you and had the chance to become so frustrated with this. Like I said, today, the first day I touched it. Undoing your edit (which I apologise for calling vandalism), the second time I touched it.--Neptunerover (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Then let's start by removing the picture. It's not related to the topic in the article, and that's a very bad way to confuse readers, by including images in an article without context. Adding artificial selection to an introductory level article on evolution doesn't seem like the way to go. Introduction to Darwin it would be appropriate. Please, be careful about calling things vandalism, especially if you know they're not, and you seem to know this article is as bad as it looks. How about putting the elephant picture in? It shows two species (and genera) of animals, species that many people are familiar with or could look at in a zoo. There are probably better choices, but it's a quick solution.
File:African-Asian-Elephants.pngAsian and African elephants used to be a single species, but the two groups split from each other long, long ago. As a result of the two groups reproducing independently from each other down through many, many generations, while the environments in which the two groups inhabit diverged over time, each group underwent its own changes in adapting to their different environments, resulting in the two distinct species we have today, defined as such by their inability to cross breed.
I would consider that change of pictures to be a constructive one, yes.--Neptunerover (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so I switched pictures, but it was replaced soon after by someone who deems it to be essential and accurate for whatever unfathomable purpose it is there for.--Neptunerover (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I swapped it back because (a) the difference between the two dogs is very clear, whereas the difference between the two elephants is at best subtle; (b) the word "breeds" in the caption is appropriate for the dogs but quite wrong for the elephants. SNALWIBMA ( talk-contribs ) 08:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it was definitely funny, the reference to elephant breeds. All I did was replace 'dogs' with 'elephants' in the old caption, which I figured would soon enough be adjusted for the new picture and its relation to the article. In the meantime though, it sure made me laugh.--Neptunerover (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The elephant pic caption may not be perfect now, but it does explain the picture's relation to the article, while pointing out the differences between the two animals by their having evolved into separate species. And so I am again removing the dogs picture, which is inaccurate for this article.--Neptunerover (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Still not convinced. And note that "the two distinct species we have today" is inaccurate, as there are three extant species of elephant, one Asian and two African! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well there's only two in the picture, so those were the only two being discussed in the caption. The caption could be made bigger by adding that the 'african' group went through yet another later split... Still, Is it an improvement, no matter how slight, over the dogs? If so, then I say success!--Neptunerover (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I put the picture back, added a link to artificial selection. This is a clear example of variation through selection which is one of the fundemental principles of evlolution. That within just a relatively brief period of time man has shaped the common wolf into everything from a Chihuahua to a Leonberger. You could call these two the same species but natrually it would be impossible for them to bread, functionally even left to the wild making it impossible to breed. Although we haven't observed speciation within dog breeds, yet, it doesn't mean it is any less powerful evidence for evolution. I think dogs are far easier concpet for a novice to grasp that a species has a great capacity to change then say the LTEE, Lenski's experiment is strong indicator of change within isolated populations as well, but it's not something a novice would easily grasp as significant. Dog breeds are used as a primary example of change through artificial selection, another is within agriculture is Brassica oleracea vast changes through artificial selection. — raeky(talk | edits) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the 'dogs breeds' caption is improved now, indicating it's relation to the article. Excellent! The second sentence is incomplete though. Lemme see... --Neptunerover (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Progress?
Our ancestors made it out of the mud; is that not progress? Life has progressed incredibly on this planet, like making it out of the oceans to breath air and then into the air flying. Life overcoming obstacles is progress, and evolution is how it progresses. Evolution may not itself be progress, but it is the way progress is attained.--Neptunerover (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not progress unless you adopt a wholly inappropriate, goal-oriented and anthropocentric viewpoint. In the context of evolution, progress is a loaded word. It brings with it a suggestion of a goal, and should be (a) placed in quotes and then (b) refuted. Evolution is about fitness, not progress towards any defined goal. SNALWIBMA ( talk-contribs ) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well there's survival, which life "wants" to do, or at least seems to want to do considering how hard it tries to do it. Survival seems to me to be an all around and overall goal of life, along with the increase in biomass, which could only possibly have come about through evolution. Is the danger here in bordering on territory of Why, which science strictly leaves up to the theologians, while concerning itself only with the How? Is it all supposed to be just randomness with no plan behind it? I'm not speaking about humans being the top of the plan; they are only a means to the goal. Intelligence is how humans are involved in the plan; it is the latest development to have arisen in Life during its battle to survive on this spinning rock in space.--Neptunerover (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
After reading those two (thank you for the links), I'm thinking that I am using the word in the wrong way due to my current understanding of what the word means differing from that of the scientific community. This would then be nearly the same as my briefly confusing duplication with replication before, which I did simply through using the wrong word for what I meant.--Neptunerover (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason I asked is related to the article because of an edit I made where I thought I was helping to clarify something by adding to the 'is not progress' statement, but the edit was quickly removed with creationist-like zeal. I believe there is a forum somewhere else where I might more appropriately have posed this query.--Neptunerover (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"there's survival. which life "wants" to do" - Life does not "want" to survive. It is simply that molecules which are good at surviving tend to out-survive ones that are bad at it, so, ipso facto, we for the most part only see the good survivors nowadays. Yet all life that ever has existed, and that ever shall, will die. On those grounds, you could argue that the point of life is to die as much as possible, rather than to survive. Both claims are equally absurd. Individual organisms can want things, but neither life as a whole, nor evolution, is progressive or purposive. You can obviously impose arbitrary 'goals' upon evolution, but you can just as easily do the same for any natural process, saying, "light wants to be massless" or "heavy objects want to curve space-time." This is exactly as valid as saying that evolution has a goal -- especially a long-term one. Evolution doesn't even exist to increase the quantity or diversity of life, since there have been times when evolution has resulted in a massive decrease in bio-mass (the oxygen catastrophe) and the loss of biodiversity (the Holocene extinction event).
Even from our human perspective, evolution is not progressive, because evolution can just as easily destroy human life as exalt it. Evolution results in just as much suffering as joy, just as much ignorance as enlightenment. Flight is not 'progress' over terrestrial locomotion, nor is walking 'progress' over swimming. They are simply different.
So, to answer your question: Yes, it's all supposed to be randomness with no plan behind it. The evidence indicates that that is how nature operates. And this has no bearing on the validity of our own goals, because we should be smart enough not to fall for thenaturalistic fallacy. If you believe in good and evil, why should you think that evolution is always progressive, is always a force for good? Some of evolution's consequences are, quite simply, evil. -Silence (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Elephants & details
Is it appropriate to call African v. Asian elephants 'distinct' species in regards to their capacity to not be crossed with one another (whether attempted artificially or otherwise), while African elephants(A) and African elephants(B) would be considered less distinct species which could possibly cross back together?--Neptunerover (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW I think this article has great potential to be informative while staying accurate at the level required for a basic overview of the topic without going into extensive details about every little thing mentioned that optimally would have a little asterisk above it linking to paragraphs of details explaining all the ways that the 'rule' being made in the statement gets broken or in fact might not even be a rule, except on a basic level, which is the level of this article, making it fit here--Neptunerover (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
The original picture should be restored because it demonstrates that dog breeding can select variations with plainly-visible results. The caption was totally accurate, and the picture and caption were totally accessible to general readers. The two elephants may satisfy those who already understand the topic, but they are completely unhelpful to those who may try reading this article to work out whether there is anything to the "theory" of evolution, as many describe it. Sure, we editors understand that the two elephants are a good example of evolution, but they do not help to engage general readers who would not see any significant difference between the two individuals. By contrast, the dogs are a stunningly obvious example of what selection can achieve. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
While I think the caption of the current lead image should be trimmed to something succinct like the previous lead image caption, I disagree with Johnuniq's proposal to restore the original version. That original image of dog breeds is a high quality photograph that accessibly conveys the idea that evolution brings about diversity, but I think it has two critical flaws. First, by using dogs of different morphology the image illustrates the results of artificial selection. Ideally, the image should illustrate results of natural selection. Second, the original image could easily be misconstrued to suggest that evolution simply produces new breeds -- i.e., that it is confined to microevolutionary changes. Ideally, the image should illustrate two different but closely related monophyletic species.
Such an image -- e.g. a photograph that illustrate both natural selection and speciation -- may be difficult to find. The current version of the lead image of two elephant species accomplishes this, but as Johnuniq notes the morphological difference isn't blindingly obvious. In that case, an image that showed results of natural selection would do -- preferably in some large mammal. Perhaps side-by-side images of melanistic and non-melanistic leopards would work?Emw(talk) 08:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: this discussion of the pictures goes across a few sections at the bottom of this page, excluding the "Progress?" section.(I started this section when working on the elephants caption).
I threw the caption together, and it grew to be rather long because of trying to explain how the elephants pictured actually do differ quite a bit from one another, even though they may not look so different in the picture. (People who dislike reading don't mind it as much when it is in a caption). (People will do more reading if there are pictures somewhere on the page near the words, especially if the words are related to the picture.) --Neptunerover (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is supposedly an "introduction" to evolution, so you should use images that explain introductory concepts, so simply add an explanation of breed to the article. It's wikilinked to the breed article which also doesn't explain any of this. I wonder why it doesn't? And this doesn't? Because it's a confused, undirected pile of useless garbage that does not even attempt to accomplish its titled goal.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is the title goal-oriented anyway? That's not good for an encyclopedia.--Neptunerover (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The elephant picture is neither helpful nor enlightening. And the new caption for the dog image removes its value, because its value was as an example of general evolutionary principles; as an explanation of only a specific incident that happened to occur in a single species' evolutionary history (which it has now been changed to), it is no longer of much value. The new explanation will also be much less clear to beginners, since it uses terminology and scientific conventions that we haven't yet explained (e.g., subspecial nomenclature). In other words, it is not conceptually simple, which is the point of this article. I agree that we should, ideally, have a picture somewhere of multiple species that are somewhat closely related; however, the elephants picture is a poor choice because it doesn't show sufficient difference. Likewise, the bee/flower pic would be a poor choice for that role, because it shows too much difference. The best way to elucidate the concept is with moderately-similar species (e.g., different bird species), and the best place to do that is quite obviously under the "Common Descent" section, which I never finished creating and which therefore lacks both substance and images. (Though ultimately a different image or two might be more useful there. But this sort of thing is certainly a prime contender.) -Silence (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that speciation is not the defining element of evolution that heritable change is, I disagree that the new caption for the dog image devalues it for the article. Dog evolution is one of the first examples Darwin himself used in Origins specifically about the change man has brought about in the species through artificial selection. It's only fitting we introduce evolution here with dog breeds and artificial selection... — raeky(talk | edits) 22:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If this were the article about artificial selection or about On the Origin of Species, I'd agree. But it's not. The very idea of 'artificial selection' is of only the very slightest significance on this article, since not one of the fundamental processes is any different in artificial vs. natural selection. Biologically, they are identical. Humans are just one of many possible sources of selection pressure, and the significance of using dog breeds at the top of Introduction to evolution (as well as one reason Darwin used artificial selection) is precisely the opposite of 'to emphasize artificial selection as a distinct and unique process.' No, the whole point of the example is to clarify for our readers that exactly the reverse is true: all hereditary change is equally evolutionary, no matter how mundane and everyday. The dog example de-sensationalizes 'evolution' and properly frames the article as being about a biological process, not a grand story of the cosmos' development. It prepares our readers for the crucial fact that 'evolution' is profoundly ordinary and evident in the world around us, even though it can, incidentally, have spectacular results if given enough time. -Silence (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think the above discussion criticizing the dog image betrays a basic misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is notaboutspecies, any more than it is about families. (In either sense.) Any example of groups of organism changing their heritable traits over time is equally evolutionary. In fact, smaller, more closely-related groups are more evolutionary because they are closer to the actual process of evolution, whereas macro-evolutionary trends are more distant side-effects of trends in the process.-Silence (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ha, ha! Fine, lets show groups of sea creatures changing their heritable traits over time. --IP69.226.103.13(talk) 04:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Land creatures (like dogs) are equally good examples. There's no real difference. -Silence (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use a picture of different goldfish breeds, instead, as an example?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
We already have a picture of dog breeds, and I was under the understanding that the sole objection to that image was that it doesn't show separate species. Goldfish breeds wouldn't solve that problem. -Silence (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Caption to dog image
Original caption:
Evolution is how life changes over many generations. All dogs once looked alike, but groups of dogs have branched off and evolved over time to become very different breeds.
Current caption:
The artificial selection of the various dog breeds demonstrates the power of change that selection can bring in a relatively short period of time (geologically speaking). Although all dogs are still the same species (Canis lupus familiaris) and a subspecies of the common wolf (Canis lupus), which they all originated from, the differences seen between them can be astounding.
In some other article I would applaud the current caption, but the original caption is much better for this article which should aim to engage readers who seriously wonder whether evolution actually exists. The advantages of the orginal are: (1) it mentions the subject of the article (evolution); (2) it gives a pithy definition of what "evolution" actually means; (3) it makes the killer point that all dogs once looked alike; (4) all this is done without using any unfamiliar terminology. Even if the original caption is the only thing that a visitor actually reads, they will have gained useful knowledge (obviously I'm talking about readers who haven't got much clue apart from hearing that evolution has something to do with monkeys).
I appreciate that it is totally impossible to comprehensively define "evolution" in a short caption, but is anyone able to identify a technical fault with the original caption? If not, it should be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the original caption should be restored. Emw (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Although it is no longer relevant - the dog picture was connected to the section on artificial selection in the FA version of this article-where it made complete and total sense. Another irrelevant comment... the visual appeal of this article is horrendous - well - only irrelevant if you are not concerned whether anyone with limited understanding would be put off by the huge expanse of text. I know my students would never read it. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The article's lost its way. The version that appeared when it was awarded FA should be restored. Why is the more insignificant artificial selection featured so prominently in the intro? Why the "what evolution is not" coming before the explaination "what evolution is"? And the tone and emphases have changed, lending emphasis to questionable (or at least, confusing) statements which demand sources, I think. "If one species happens to change, this will alter the living environment of every species in the area" Really?Everyspecies? ""The more similar individuals within a colony are, the more likely they are to make sacrifices for each other." Is this true? What about the well known example of the Portuguese Man o' War in which the different organisms are quite specialized?"Altruistic traits in clone colonies and ant societies, for example, can have high fitness because the DNA which codes such traits will be nearly identical in other members of the colony." Traits can have high fitness because their corresponding DNA is widely shared? What's happened? This used to be a FA! Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The total replacement of a highly reviewed FA article by a single editor must surely be unusual. I assumed the silence over Silence's replacement was affirmation that the original was in dire need of total replacement or at the worst, there was complete apathy regarding this Introduction Article. I am fairly certain if I blanked the Evolution page and recreated my own version, it would not go unnoticed, nor un-commented It is entirely possible that the new article is a dramatic improvement over the former. If so - then I suggest placing it up for FA so that it will be a worthy companion of the main article.
They surely take two different approaches. The current seems to focus on the term "Evolution" with a more direct "nuts and bolts" approach; the latter told the "Story of Evolution". From a teacher's perspective, I prefer the historical approach, where one introduces the reader to the process of evolution as it was developed through history. This approach - used by many authors seems less intimidating than taking on the subject from a more manualistic (is that a word) style of writing.
In part because of its torrid history, the original editors are not likely to rise up in its defense; either because no one wishes to open up old wounds or very possibly - we ourselves were not thrilled over the version that appeared after the FA process. I guess anyone has the power to hit the revert button - it depends on how passionately you are attached to the FA version. I for one would be delighted to see its return.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I liked the old version. David D.(Talk) 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The "evidence for evolution" discussion has been downplayed also. I preferred the outline in the former FA. At times now the explanations given confuse me. Evolution is an observed process and natural phenomenon in the world, akin to theories such as gravity or atoms. As such, it is a scientific fact. This lumps "theory" with "scientific fact" but evolution itself encompasses two components-the theoretical and the factual-and it is not so that theory of gravity and atomic theory are scientific facts. I think it's better not to raise the subject at all than it is to conflate the two. Although selection can result in adaptations which help organisms flourish in their environment, most evolution is not particularly helpful. Are we trying to imply most selection isn't helpful? or that The vast majority of evolutionary changes are random, not selected? Is this a settled issue? The Evolution article says otherwise. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the old version. While the old version was admirable in many ways, it had a large problem in that it was just a different version of Evolution (aka "POV fork"). My feeling is that many of the different opinions on this talk are due to differences between what each editor imagines as the primary audience. I would like an article aimed at young students as a counter to the large amount of nonsense that many people encounter (like "evolution is just a theory") as well as the misunderstandings (like "evolution is progress"). The current article cuts out the waffle and provides a quick introduction to what evolution is. Any problems with the sentences highlighted by Professor marginalia can be addressed in the normal manner, although I would encourage simplicity in the article with footnotes to cover details where required. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's pointless now to argue to roll back the clock to re-hash how or why an article as it emerged passing thru the notoriously obsessive, possessive and formalistic FA gauntlet could be months after junked to the waste bin as a POV fork. The problems surrounding the ambiguity over the "primary audience" are worth looking into. The emphasis has certainly shifted from a "textbook introduction" to this broad and unfolding area of study in biology we call "evolution" into more of a "user manual" type answer lookup, where scientific facts, theories, and concomitant controversies are delivered more as "pronouncements" than "findings". I'm bugged as a reader with the lack of sourcing for some of the claims in the article in its current form. If I were a teacher reviewing content like this in a homework assignment I'd be red-marking many parts with a "what is your source?" I'm hard pressed to understand how questions raised about statements like "Altruistic traits in clone colonies and ant societies can have high fitness because the DNA which codes such traits will be nearly identical in other members of the colony" receive higher scrutiny to remove than is demanded when added to the article. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Current Status
I've reviewed numerous documents geared toward introducing the uninformed to Evolution. This has been essential since I constantly face objections and challenges far more vehement than any conversations that occur on the Evolution talk pages. With tact and patience, students can and do grasp the big picture; accommodating the theory into their philosophical perspective. All of the resources that attribute to my success, approach evolution from an historical standpoint. Start with the early history and the logic of Darwin's observations, culminating with the current evidence that solidifies the theory. I reviewed "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" a NOVA documentary; the sequence of establishing an understanding was nearly identical to the organization of the original article. It is a blueprint repeated time and time again in text and support documents designed to teach evolution. I could not image approaching my classes using the current version. It raise far more questions and generates far more confusion than is resolves.
One aspect of the original version was its tact when approaching the subject. In its earliest stages of inception it was blunt and antagonistic; however, a few hundred edits and a numerous fresh perspectives made the article accessible; yet, not an affront to those who are curious about the theory who may hold reservations. The current approach fails on that accord; even the subheadings - Evolution is Notor What Evolution is seems to challenge the non-believers.
The writing style of the original was guided by one of the very best writers on Wikipedia; every line was scrutinized to conform to the highest grammatical standards. The copy edit was above reproach; the prose worthy of FA. This is no longer the case.
The process by which the original was deleted is also troubling to me. It was nominated for FA deletion by an editor who was bold in criticism; yet is contributing nothing to the new version nor has made any comments sense the demotion. Incidentally, none of the concerns they raised involved "forks" a concern that was discarded in 3 deletion attempts. I was under the impression that not only did the nominator identify numerous faults; they also held the key to the solutions.
I commend Silence for his confidence in his knowledge of the topic; however, I fail to see an improvement. Instead, the outcome has been the loss of Featured Status with little hope that this version meets those rigid standards. If one is bold enough to blank the work of so many; I would expect a diligent effort to push their version through the same level of scrutiny. The failure to cite references as pointed out above and a lack of attention to the article since its overnight rewrite raises the question ... is this it?
I also recognize the fact that I am not a self-proclaimed expert in the field; my expertise is limited to the Introductory Level. This self doubt is why I raised minimal protest at the rewrite and why I cannot hit the revert button. With so many contributors having invested so much time into the FA version - surely someone will be so bold? --JimmyButler (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to help on this article a little bit previously (I am no expert on the topic, but I am interested and I write well), but luckily I made it out of the mousetrap. (Take that as you wish, either a lack of bravery, or a show of brains)--Neptunerover(talk) 06:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll go with the latter, apparently no one wishes to be sucked into the void. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
How about applying a Darwinian approach to the issue itself and testing the two versions, keeping the one that turns out to be more effective or popular with laymen? :) On the German Wikipedia, the de:Wikipedia:Laientest is advocated to test if an article is really as accessible as it is intended to be. Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
"Species slowly splitting"
I removed the sentence "The species is slowly splitting into two distinct species." from the caption to the diagram of a ring species. It doesn't add anything to the explanation of the diagram and there's no verifiable source that I'm aware of that says that ring species must necessarily split into two distinct species. If there is, then put the sentence back and add a reference. Peter coxhead(talk) 13:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Too Much Time on my Hands!
In the Heredity Section: "Through this process, multiple DNA molecules are combined in a random fashion, resulting in a "deliberately" unique new organism. Female and male sex cells each have their different DNA strands split in half during meiosis, and one half from each is combined to form a brand new DNA molecule. As a result, sexual species have much more diverse populations than asexual species do. This in turn makes it easier for sexual species to evolve quickly".
Concerns that I wish addressed
Female and male sex cells each have their different DNA strands split... Is it not the somatic cells in which homologous pairs are separated? They are not sex cells until they are haploid - the end product of meiosis?
Are the actual strands "split in half". This may be misleading for some could easily visualize a single chromosome breaking into two equal pieces.
... one half from each is combined to form a brand new DNA molecule. Is a brand new DNA molecule formed? I was thinking the deck is reshuffled and new alliances are created; but the DNA strand itself is unchanged (with the exception of crossing over). A Brand new molecule suggest all new information. It also suggest the equal pieces chromosomes physically join rather than share a new partnership. With the exception of mutation, the information is the same.
sexual species have much more diverse populations than asexual species do. Citation on that would be nice.
Diversity in bacteria and virus... I was thinking that extreme exponential growth allowed for rapid rates of adaptation via the introduction of mutations. Perhaps a cite on the "easier to evolve quickly" would nice.
This article has virtual no referencing to support any of the statements. (with the exception of residual cites from the former version). I was attempting to verify an abundance of claims; but must trust to the authors skills - especially regarding the supporting examples that go beyond the general knowledge level. It could easily be plastered with citations needed.
Why is the term "deliberately" in quotations? The emphasis on random reassortment may be missed if you suggest the process is deliberate. What point am I missing on the apparent contradiction?
If gametogenesis is central to the explanation of evolution; then perhaps the process of crossing over should be included? Surely it accounts for a significant amount of recombination of genetic information and the resulting diversity.
However, the source of most genetic diversity in plants and animals is sexual reproduction. This should be familiar to the early authors- the emphasis on sex! Somewhere in here there needs to be an emphasis that sex does not create new information; it only re-sorts existing information. The introduction of new genetic information is mutations - which is not a minor deal as implied in this section. Ask any student- they think that breeding the animal creates the variation - the variation is merely given an opportunity to form an alliance with different genes in which formerly there had been no such associations. Yes?*
Evolution occurs in two different ways. The first way is random — when a population's traits change by chance. The second way is called selection. Selection happens when a trait helps an organism to have more offspring, such as by keeping the organism from dying young. This helpful trait will tend to become more common in the population, because organisms with the trait produce more offspring — who may inherit the same trait. Random is the result of ?????????? well???? You established the contrast... why no follow through? The emphasis of the dis-satisfaction over the initial article was its lack of dialog on the "Random" aspect of evolution and over-emphasis on selection. How does this one differ. Other than a brief statement in the introduction where evolution is divided into two distinct pathways (random vs selection) there is no further discussion on the random component. The introduction establishes what's to follow. Why is the random aspect not addressed in its own dedicated section as is selection?
Selection happens when a trait helps an organism to have more offspring, such as by keeping the organism from dying young. From the introduction - which is far as most people typically read. Selection also happens when a trait is detrimental as well. This is only implied by the example of preventing an early death... but an uninformed reader will miss this implications and take your definition to heart; natural selection is the limited to perpetuation of positive traits. Are not some traits more common in a population because the alternative traits are weeded out?
What Evolution is Not. This is a resurrection of the Misconception Section that caught so much criticism back in the earlier versions. The only difference is the title has been changed to something less insulting (yet you are still assuming the reader has arrived at this site in a completely mis-informed state of mind). The reasons for deleting the section in the past; which I assume are still valid: (1)Encyclopedias do not explain things in the negative format. For example you do not describe a car by informing people of all the features and functions that it can not do. (2)The current version has the misconception as the very first section; even before the reader can grasp what evolution actually is. The criticism of course is that this is defensive; even somewhat antagonistic or at best insulting. I often thought we should title it Mis-conception held by Creationist and be up front about it. (3)We know these misconceptions exist; however, they should be embedded in the sections to which they apply. This was done in the past version - a tedious task; but one that bears repeating. Frankly starting the entire article with a misconception section is boarder lining bizarre.
These are equivalent to "nature" and "nurture", A very poor analogy - to link acquired characteristic with the concept of nature/nurture. The issue of nature nurture is a highly debated theme regarding how much of what we are, is determined by genetics. In class we have a great deal of fun arguing over issues such as talent, intelligence, sexual orientation etc... To use this to explain acquired-characteristic would befuddle my students by linking two different themes; That of acquired characteristics (non controversial_) with that of Nature / Nurture (highly debated issue).
The catalyst for construction of the intro article was to develop an appealing, inviting, and easily understood alternative to the Main article. Imagining was a part of that strategy. To see these images replaced with such a sterile format, that is anything but inviting, is a real disappointment. Of course this is a personal bias; in part from my understanding of how students react to assigned reading. You have to break up the passages with inviting and informative images. The current selection fails beyond measure on the inviting component.
Evolution is not sudden. Evolution is occurring all the time, as an extremely gradual, incremental process (Intensely discussed in above sections - but not resolved). Obviously, your goal is worthy - to address the challenges to the theory of evolution by stating that the process is not obvious within the span of a human life. I too, stress this in lecture; however, in your effort to establish this you have mis-representd reality. The reality is "time is relevant to the situation" sudden on a history of the earth stand point is not the same as sudden in the context of the typical reader. You've confused the two and in the process ruled out adaptation in rapidly reproducing asexual bacteria and of course if one expands the concept of sudden - you've directly challenged Punctuated Equilibrium - which to my knowledge is still a viable and respected perspective. Yes - it is a head ache - making the point - yet satisfying all the nuances to appease the science. Been there -i have!
Although selection can result in adaptations which help organisms flourish in their environment, most evolution is not particularly helpful. While evolution can eventually result in dramatic changes, in the short term it is a meandering process of minor modifications. Is this the point of contention with the original - the failure to account for "random". Ironic - since this statement is made; yet the entire article centers around adaptations and how they lead to improvement. I demand a citation for the phrase "most evolution is not particularly helpful". I can certainly agree on most mutations - I'm not as confident on the "selection process" being overall insignificant, as this sentence suggest.
If one species happens to change, this will alter the living environment of every species in the area. These is taking Co-evolution to the extreme and is not a factual statement.
If all the different traits which DNA could produce were equally beneficial, evolution would be a strictly random process. However,since some traits are helpful and some are harmful, this is not the case. This sequence seems to be in direct contradiction of the emphasis previously placed on the "random" aspect of evolution. Did you intend to ignore "neutral" mutations at this point?
The vast majority of evolutionary changes are random, not selected. This is because most inheritable variations are neutral, [citation needed]neither helping nor hindering survival and reproductive success. Most such variations have no effect on the organism and are only detectable at the molecular level. Although these variations have little short-term effect, they can randomly increase or decrease in commonness, resulting in evolution. The failure to include "neutral mutations" in the original - I assume is addressed in this relatively minor paragraph. First I suggest it should be in the beginning of the section on selection (not at the end) since, you view it as significant detail. Second, if the randomness / none selected traits are the primary force behind evolutionary changes as you suggest - then I would support this with very specific - citable examples of such variations. The following is a contradiction: "have little short-term effect"; If they have "any" short-term effect than it is not random. Even minor, apparently insignificant variations that have negative or positive effects can be influenced by time - random does not apply.
This line from the text is problematic in which case they put all their resources into being very good at just a few things. This is a very efficient strategy, because it is in direct conflict with this line from the What evolution is not: evolution does not aspire toward any goal. Why develop a strategy if you don't have a goal?
I truly dislike the use of children in the first paragraph. If the reader can't recognize that parents produce offspring (ie. children) what hope do they truly have of understanding anything that follows?
Every living thing is distantly related — every organism is part of an enormous family tree. Everything is not distantly related. Somethings are closely related. The phrase is arbitrary and misleading. Chimps and humans are closely related - relative to humans and Baboons.
Selection and random change can cause more and more differences to accumulate in a population, eventually resulting in new species. This may seem trivial; but the statement is too absolute. Speciation is not inevitable as this statement claims.
During the final GA review, the article came under criticism for neglecting plants; this concern was addressed with some excellent examples in our efforts to achieve FA. The current version has fallen into that unfortunate pattern, the plant examples were removed. The Evolution of Animals is too restrictive.
The chemical properties of DNA cause it to build other molecules which make up the organism's body. I am somewhat surprised that these generalizations are allowed; considering the demand for accuracy expressed over the former version. I preferred the comparison of DNA as the instructions; as the molecules "built by DNA" or not making up the body as incorrectly implied here. I recall - the statement appearing time and time again... "You can not sacrifice accuracy for simplicity." Has that perspective changed? The entire hereditary section suggest that is the case.
What does evolution result in? Our English gurus discourage the closing of a sentence with a preposition. Not to mention a section heading in the form of a question.
The Introduction article came under a lot of criticism as unnecessary and redundant (note the numerous calls for deletion) This version has taken on far more similarities to the main article; note the organization and headings. Whether good nor bad - I'm uncertain; but certainly discredits the argument that the former version was a fork.:Taking a break... if responses could be addressed in a different section - I have yet to finish my amateur analysis. However, this article is need of a critical review... I'm surprised an Fa was deleted for this. It has potential; but apparently the author has lost interest?
--JimmyButler (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
:If time permits - I plan to give the article a more serious review on Tuesday (no classes); perhaps perform a readability analysis. Thank you for your patience.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
A List of Concerns
Thank you for the opportunity to critique this version. It has been such a dramatically different experience; being the one to point out the concerns as opposed to attempting to address them. To the point: If you feel confident enough to delete an FA article and replace it with a personal version; then at least replace it to the original standards. The lack of citations is absolutely appalling. This has to be unusual. A version that was subjected to a review by an endless number of knowledgeable editors including some of the very best in grammar and prose to be replaced by an article that falls so dismally short of FA standards. I honestly expected the new version to be beyond exceptional - being the author was confident enough to dismiss the efforts of the many who preceded him. This is not exceptional. I've supported my claim with a very specific list that I trust will be addressed. I suspect this list is but the tip of the iceberg.--JimmyButler(talk) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This talk page could use some archiving... I guess I could use some of the free time and figure out how!--JimmyButler(talk) 22:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Good job JimmyButler - I agree with the points you have made. I came in here when I was just starting to learn the wikipedia ways and made comments that were far too technical for this article. I read through the article today and I really don't like it. Many of the points that JimmyButler raises are valid. The images are not appealing and in the attempt to simplify the concepts - the true meaning of evolution is lost. I find myself cringing at the way that some of the sentences are put together and I've been an enthusiastic student and educator of evolution for the past 20 years. I'm concerned enough about the concept of evolution to post a remark here - but don't have enough time to come in here and battle out the changes that would be needed to bring this article up to an acceptable standard. I realize that some people have put their hearts and minds into this newer version, but I seriously wonder if it wouldn't be better to just go back to the version that had the FA article status in the first place[[1]]?Thompsma (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So whats a reasonable amount of time to determine if anyone is serious enough about this version to address the concerns; so that I might do the revert? --JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally - I say go for it. This article went from being a featured article to a dud. Go back to the featured article - it was much better. The featured article had a few problems that could be tweaked. However, I don't know why anyone would want to torture themselves with this one. Personally I hope that people just go to the main evolution article and learn about it there. If people don't understand it and need a dumbed down version - they can go to a bookstore and buy Evolution for Dummies.[[2]] There are far more important articles that need help. Evolution is an important topic - but this introduction article cannot get it together.Thompsma (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I just re-read the main Evolution article. From my perspective - the main Evolution article is an introduction to evolution. What is so complex about the main article that it couldn't be read by an average reader? I think this is the problem with this article - it is trying to create something that is ill defined. Evolutionary research can become extremely complex and mathematically advanced. It makes more sense to create an article called Advanced Research in Evolution. Even if this article reverts back to its original FA status form - which I support- I still don't see how it reads any more introductory than the main article. Perhaps it should be titled - Evolution for Dummy's - or Evolution for teens? The Berkeley Evolution page[3] uses the following scale: K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12, All grades. What cross-section of the audience is this article trying to target? This decision needs to be made and laid out clear at the top, or this article should be cleared all together because I really don't see the point.Thompsma (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The diminished need for an Introduction Article has a lot to do with the dramatic improvements made on the main entry. At the time (nearly 2 years ago?) the main article was a dreadful mess, laden with jargon. The talk page developed into a heated discussion over content and complexity. Thus - this version was was born. Whenever someone complained about the level of complexity - they defended with "We've got an intro version". Fortunately, the main article has been transformed dramatically and the need for this version may be a thing of the past. There have been numerous calls for deletion, the most intense during the FA review. I suspect it is the only article to make FA while barely getting through a deletion process. I'm sure it is the only FA article that was completely rewritten by a single editor - who lost the star-only to be reverted back to its former self (minus star); doesn't seem fair after such a long an arduous process of reaching the FA consensus. I'm going to be bold - thou not as bold as the one who trashed an FA article - and see how to restore the prior version!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
FA version restored - someone else needs to delete the star that came back with it . Too Weird
Reverted to FA version ... the star is back --oops. Damn if I'm taking it off! What a dreadful mess. --JimmyButler(talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There were some excellent - albeit un-cited material in the rewrite that could likely be worked into this version.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness!!!Thompsma (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Understanding Randomness
The introduction to this article gives a common misconception about evolution - even among professionals. This has been identified as a conceptual problem that people have with randomness (see [4]). Take the following sentence for example:
"Traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than traits that are unfavorable, a process called natural selection."
Now read the following quote taken from the paper I link to above : 231 :
The rhetoric we use in society focuses on the idea that “only the strongest survive.” In addition, students’ talk about evolution focuses on “adapt or disappear,” with no room for underlying random processes, i.e., evolution must be a directional movement driven by natural selection, just as diffusion is directional movement driven by concentration gradients. Such a view implies meaning to traits that may be attributable to nonadaptive processes. There are, in fact, data from studies by population geneticists
that genetic drift and related random events play a key role in molecular evolution, creating and disrupting regulatory sites, etc. (see Lynch and Conery, 2003; Lynch, 2006; Yi, 2006; Brockhurst, 2007; Lynch, 2007). This implies that learning in the biological sciences must overcome the prevalent “anti-random” bias, so that students come to appreciate that in biological systems survival
means that the species has managed to reproduce successfully, and that over time differential survival leads to evolutionary change.
Randomness is an important concept for introductory evolution because these educators have determined that this is where most learners are confused about evolution and how it can create complexity. The reasoning process then leads them to believe in a driver - such as an intelligent creator. In many sections of this article - the concept of natural selection and randomness is miseleaning in this respect. The sentence about traits 'helping' the organism to survive puts an emphasis on something driving the system. The process of natural selection is more encompassing, but I would need some help to word this at an introductory level.
Here is Gould & Lloyd's (1999)[5] take on this where they don't explicitely refer to randomness, but still manage to get the point across effectively:
"The logic of the theory of natural selection, as many evolutionary theorists and philosophers of science have recognized, assigns the status of causal agency in selection to interactors, defining them as individuals that:
(i) Interact with the environment, broadly construed as all surrounding and influencing biotic and abiotic factors, in such a way that
(ii) One or more of their traits imparts differential reproductive success through the interaction, so that
(iii) Relatively more or less (compared with other individuals at their level) of their hereditary material (however packaged) passes to the next generation."
The common, and often unconscious, bias of defining the salience of an evolutionary process by its role in the production, maintenance, or utilization of adaptations has stymied our understanding of selection at supraorganismic levels, where adaptation may not hold the definitive status generally granted to this result in the organismic realm. This error has been catholic in distribution; for both supporters and denigrators of supraorganismic selection and of the interactor approach have mistakenly linked the defense of their contrary positions to the presence and production of adaptations.
Traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than traits that are unfavorable, a process called natural selection.This process in combination with ....(how do you summarize the above idea?) .... accounts for the diversity of life seen today. Then perhaps adding a section on random factors such as genetic drift- founder effect, bottle neck etc... with some supporting examples. To be honest ... I understand how genetic drift (random) effects gene pools and gene frequencies; but I don't know enough to add anything on the effects of such random events at the molecular level. Is the main article equally lacking in their approach? You are most correct, I teach that mutations are random; but the environment sets specific criteria which dictate which genes will most likely be represented over successive generations. I will review your references and seek others to clear up my own misconceptions.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to summarize this earlier - but had to run. It wasn't well writting - I was in a rush. If you could read through the first paper (Doxas & Klymkowsky, 2008)[6] - I think they have some important points about teaching evolution and as a teacher - I think you will enjoy reading it. This is the kind of place that could help us to make this article more effective as an introduction. Doxas & Kllymkowsky (2008) used concept map tools to understand high school students perceptions about natural selection. They (the students) are facing specific conceptual problems with the theory of natural selection and how this can work if something is random. Sounds like the flaw we see in creationists oposing the theory as they make the argument that it is absurd that something random could possibly create complex things and so they arrive at Intelligent Design. I hope that we can collectively find a way to simplify this important point. I think the problem with the statement in the introduction on traits is that it implies that this is all there is to natural selection, when there is more to it than this.
Comparing sections from the papers of Doxas & Klymkowsky:
Evolutionary change in biological systems is based on three processes:
(1) the appearance of genetic variation through mutation and the capture of genetic information through either
(2) selection (natural and sexual) or
(3) random processes, such as genetic drift, genetic bottlenecks, and founder effects.
To Gould and Lloyd:
The logic of the theory of natural selection defines interactors as (Darwinian) individuals (or oganisms) that:
(i = 2 above) Interact with the environment, broadly construed as all surrounding and influencing biotic and abiotic factors, in such a way that
(ii = 3 above) One or more of their traits imparts differential reproductive success through the interaction, so that
(iii = 1 above) Relatively more or less (compared with other individuals at their level) of their hereditary material (however packaged) passes to the next generation.
Here is my conclusion:
1. Natural selection occurs in ecosystems when plants and animals interact in their environments:
Natural selection is a process that operates across all the levels of organization in life. Selection can be acting on groups of individuals, for example, such as gophers living in a colony. It is important that members of the colony help each other out, otherwise the individuals in the colony will suffer and not have as successful a chance to survive. At another level or organization, traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than selfish traits that make life unfavorable for the colony as a whole.
2. Natural selection occurs at the genetic level where random and non-random mutatations, such as the duplication of genes, mix among populations as organisms migrate into different areas:
When organisms are fewer in number, such as on an island, the forces of natural selection at the genetic level increases the rate of change such that only a few traits survive and define the population. We can all understand this when we look at families that all share similar characteristics. If a family of birds with a certain kind of beak were isolated on a distant island, their general beak appearances would be clearly identifyable even after a few generations, but they might change slightly as some of the original variation might have disapeared as some beaks were better shaped to break open the type of seeds that existed on their unique island. When populations become larger the rate of change at the genetic level starts to slow down. This occurs because their are more traits randomly mixing around as organisms migrate across the land and meet up and interbreed with distant relatives of the same species.
3. Natural selection occurs when organisms have traits that improve their reproductive chances when they interact with other members of their species:
Directional, stabilizing, disruptive and sexual selection apply here. It would be nice, perhaps to include an example like the courship dance of salamanders??[8][9]. Some of the amphibian dances are elaborate and fun - kids often like to hear about the dancing salamander. The Red Queen and Green Beard hypothesis also applies here.
I hope I have identified the problem and made it clear so that we can re-word a few sections to improve the conceptual bias against randomness out of the equation.Thompsma (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A new lead
After all that rambling I did above I thought this through and decided to put together a new lead to this article in my sandbox. I invite everyone to come and take a look.[10] Also - at the bottom of the lead I have written - Notes to the reader of this Sandbox. I would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts and reactions to what I have written. It is a very different take on this article, but I think this new lead will help to clarify and resolve any outstanding issues in this article. I hope and think that it will help us to collectively meet the challenge of what this article can be about. Thank you.Thompsma (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
JimmyButler was kind enough to stop by and comment on my lead proposal. He doesn't think it will fly and I agree. This version of the article is much better than the re-write that was attempted. However, I am still concerned with the lead. It gives an inaccurate portrayal of natural selection. I've made this claim before, but I'm too wordy and seem unable to distill the essence of what I'm trying to say. I'll try to give it a go here - briefly - I wrote an expanded version of my understanding in my sandbox to clarify my thoughts. This article presents natural selection in a very limited sense as though it is only related to the selection of traits. This is too narrow and it is not what Darwin was trying to say. Natural selection is a metaphor. Look at the title of Darwin's book:
On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Darwin was a natural historian. The theory of evolution is part of the natural sciences. This means that the theory provides explanations for phenomena that are natural in contrast to supernatural. Gravity, for example, is a natural explanation for the forces of attraction between bodies of mass. Natural selection is not just about trait selection, this is a very small part of the explanation, but a significant part of the process. It is important to look at the second part of the title that hinges on OR - hence, in Darwin's mind either version would suffice. He struggled with the decision to call it natural selection vs. natural preservation. If you spend a bit of time mulling this over, you will have a better grasp of the concept. Now take a look at this sentence:
Traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than traits that are unfavorable, a process called natural selection.
This is not what natural selection is! Natural selection is a force like gravity. Could you re-word this sentence and end it with a process called gravity - it sounds weird when you put it this way. Natural selection is more than this - but the bare bones requires three things: 1. overproduction of offspring, 2. variation, 3. heritability. This definition in the lead only captures partly 2 and 3 - it says nothing about the overproduction of offspring until the next sentence, but still the sentence above seems to indicate that overproduction of offspring is not needed. Moreover, it boils everything down to a trait, which is very reductionist and I'm certain that Darwin would be turning over in his grave if this is what his idea had been reduced down too. He did write other books and his expanded view of natural selection has proven to work in the social sciences. Darwin wrote about group selection and the evolution of morality without a single reference to traits. How can you reconcile multi-level selection theory at an introductory level when the lead says that it boils down to a trait? Even the bare bones tri-pod definition of natural selection is too narrow in scope, it requires further context to understand how the theory of evolution works.Thompsma (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How about the following for a new lead (I have and can add citations, just pasting this here to get some editorial comments, feedback and opinions):
From the smallest bacteria to gravitational forces acting on planets, nature is in motion all around us. Prior to Charles Darwin, nature was studied by naturalists trying understand the divine order or balance of nature. Carl Linnaeus was one of the earliest naturalists to propose a rational system for organizing and classifying nature according to measurable characteristics of form. Natural history scientists, such as Linnaeus, were academically trained to collect, name and organize plants, animals and minerals. Through this tradition, Carl Linnaeus developed his natural system of biological classification (kingdom, order, family, genus, species) that groups organisms into a hierarchy of relations according to their degree of shared and similar characteristics. This was the birth of taxonomy and is still used to this day. Linnaeus equated his study of nature to the worship of God's creations and believed that God had given him the greatest insight 'greater than any has ever gained' to reveal the taxonomic order of life, which was God's plan.
Natural history is the forerunner of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Charles Darwin was trained in the natural history sciences and had read Carl Linnaeus' published works. Darwin collected and classified nature according to the principals that Carl Linnaeus had developed in the 18th century. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, the understanding of nature was that while there were varieties of organisms, species had not changed since their creation. Every species was conceived as it had always been. Darwin, like other natural historians before him, applied the systematic rules of classifying plants and animals into their respective taxonmic groups. Once organized, Darwin noticed a pattern and a correlation between the geographic distributions of species and what seemed to be a gradient in transition of body form. One gradient in transition of body form was seen in the beak of the finches of the Galapagos Islands. Finches along a chain of islands would start at one end with smaller beaks and would gradually increase toward larger beaks along the geographic continuum. After years of careful observation and applying the systematic methods of natural historians before him, Darwin outlined a scientific theory to explain the origin of these patterns to nature.
In 1856, Charles Darwin published his proposed theory of natural selection. Darwin explained that the observed varieties of species and organisms had survived by a purely natural system of operation. The bare-bones formulation of the theory of natural selection is based on three proven facts of nature: 1) every organism has an overproduction of offspring, 2) there are varieties, and 3) there is heritability. Natural selection, like gravity, is a force of nature. The full title of Charles Darwin's evolutionary treatise, "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", captures the full set of terms needed to understand the theory of evolution; Darwin's treatise will be referred to simply as The Origin hereafter. Evolution by means of natural selection is the most enduring scientific explanation for the diversity and the history of species on planet Eath. Darwin's theory of natural selection was supported by the evidence that he had collected during his travels that makes his theory scientific. This means that other natural history scientists are welcome the examine the evidence or to discover new varieties of life as a means of testing his theory of natural selection.
With a bit of editing I think that this lead might work. While it gives a historical narative, the benefit of this is that is gives a proper introduction into what natural selection really is and corrects the misconception about natural selection that is in the current lead. The bit about the beak of the finch is a bit of an extrapolation - and I can improve on this. I would be interested in hearing what people have to say. After this - the lead could give some more contemporary & introductory information about random genetic drift and multi-level selection theory.Thompsma (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Picture
What's up with the "picture" of James Watson?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Where?Thompsma (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I see it now. It must not have had been legal. I'll delete it.Thompsma (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I just spent some time helping over with evolution and it made me rethink about bit about this lead. The first bit is too heavily focused on natural selection without any reference to genetic drift. I wonder if we can tweak the first paragraph a bit in this respect:
The biodiversity of life evolves by means of natural selection and random genetic drift. The principles of natural selection are based on three factual observations, including: 1) Every individual is supplied with hereditary material in the form of genes that are received from their parents; then, passed on to their offspring. 2) Organisms tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. 3) There are variations among offspring as a consequence of either the random introduction of new genes via mutations or reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction. Random genetic drift describes the microevolutionary process of minor mutations that occur regularly in the genes. These smaller mutations neither assist, change the appearance of, nor bring harm to individuals. Natural selection and random genetic drift are a constant and dynamic part of nature. More than 99% of all species have gone extinct since life began over 3,500 million years ago. Evolution is more death than survival and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life.
Any suggestions? This is a first crack at it.Thompsma (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made the argument that natural selection and random genetic drift are hard to distinguish - if not impossible. Of course neutral evolution occurs, but there is no question that it is a natural process. Moreover, the process of molecular drift does result in a type of selection as different genetic traits become randomly fixed. So we have natural processes and a neutral process where mutations are randomly selected in the lottery of life. When you read the three parts definition to natural selection - presented over and over again in the literature in the same style used in this lead - you can see how neutral theory fits in. The definition says nothing about adaptation and it shouldn't, because natural selection is not adaptation. Natural selection explains how adaptations can be non-random because they have a utility, a functional purpose that fails if poorly designed. Natural selection also explains how random variation can be differentially represented across generations and among populations, because individuals are removed by way of competition for limited resources. Neutral or harmful traits drift alongside and are dragged by positively selected variants in close proximity on the chromosomes. Moreover, the nearly neutral theory exposes another dynamic to the system. What is neutral in a large population becomes strongly subjected to the forces of selection in smaller isolated populations. Some situations also call for a rapidly evolving genome - one that is evolutionarily unconstrained for its design purpose, but evolutionarily adapted as a search and rescue strategy. In this way - neutral genes can be adaptive in nature, they are adapted for their evolvability. All this is a little complicated and academic. The point I'm trying to make is...for an introductory article the principals of natural selection might suffice. However, I'm not entirely convinced either way. I'm a little concerned about distilling evolution down to two processes - natural selection and random genetic drift - because there is a psychological tendency for us to put a duality on things, the ying-yang effect - good versus evil, black and white, micro- versus macro-evolution, etc...Thompsma (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Your logic is sound. I too felt the article's introduction suggest that natural selection was the end-all be-all aspect to evolution. I don't particularly care for referencing "micro-evolutionary" - primarily due to its corruption by creationist and the misconception that macro-evolution is one type of evolution whereas micro is an alternative form. Perhaps that term can be deleted. One the earliest versions had a nice section on genetic drift - even referencing the bottle neck and founder effect. The Hardy-Weinberg section - which I thought made evolution clear was deleted as "over the top and non-essential" - although the formula was not introduced - only the influence that population size has on evolution. If you introduce genetic drift in the Introduction - it will need a followup in the body of the text.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a bit of research on this. Some philosophers and evolutionists have lumped genetic drift as an example of natural selection (see[11]), but the following paper (Elisabeth S. Vrba and Stephen Jay Gould (1986) The Hierarchical Expansion of Sorting and Selection: Sorting and Selection Cannot Be Equated. Paleobiology, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 217-228) makes an important point that selection is causal - meaning that there is a reason for the sorting, whereas drift is differential survival without a cause - no adaptation. The philosopher John Beatty put this down to chance and stated that Darwin did not see chance as an alternative to natural selection but as complementary to it. However, Darwin saw chance as a way of creating varieties that were subsequently subject to natural selection, but he did not consider chance in the fate of the introduced varieties. First chance causing the variation followed by non-discriminant sampling via natural selection - whereas genetic drift sees chance causing the variation as well as the fate of that trait via drift (chance). Hence, it does seem important to distinguish the two. Could we do this by taking out microevolution:
The biodiversity of life evolves by means of natural selection and random genetic drift. The principles of natural selection are based on three factual observations, including: 1) Every individual is supplied with hereditary material in the form of genes that are received from their parents; then, passed on to their offspring. 2) Organisms tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. 3) There are variations among offspring as a consequence of either the random introduction of new genes via mutations or reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction. Random genetic drift describes the process that regulates minor mutations that occur with regular frequency in the genes. These smaller mutations neither assist, change the appearance of, nor bring harm to individuals - they are neutrally sorted among populations and survive across generations by chance alone. In contrast, natural selection is not a random process because it acts on traits that must provide an operational or functional utility that meets the requirements for survival. Natural selection and random genetic drift are forever constant and dynamic parts of life. More than 99% of all species have gone extinct since life began over 3,500 million years ago. Evolution is more death than survival and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life.
The paragraph is a little lengthy, possibly too wordy and so could use some editorial improvement following some discussion here.Thompsma (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am going to make this change to the main page.Thompsma (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Further reading
I've updated the further reading section by adding recent books. I've pruned the selection so that the material isn't older than about 10 years and the number of items doesn't exceed about 10. Sort of a rule of 10 :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
FA
The article lost the FA status after it was completely rewritten. Since the original version has been returned along with significant improvements to the lead; would anyone consider it unreasonable to suggest that the article still merits the FA star. I suggest that it be renominated; the current version was extensively reviewed and deemed worthy. Confusing, I realize, but again the article that was demoted was NOT this article. Should it be listed under FAR or FAC? On the other hand ... if this is an FA version in spirit - would it be a good idea to leave well enough alone and not subject it to the potential of endless edits that may lead to an even more difficult to read intro? Thoughts.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, does anyone have thick enough skin to shuttle it through FA. I think it should go to FA. But, .... Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I hold the position that it was FA all along; the rewrite that caused the de-listing was a single editor effort that guaranteed its removal; an editor that felt that it was not FA in its present form. Can you image if I went to the Evolution article; recommended its delisting... then rewrote the entire thing before judgement was passed... too weird. Rather than respond to every criticism which drives us to complexity.... perhaps we should see this as verification that original FA judgment was correct and reframe from addressing suggestions that lead us in that direction. I think I can do that? I also think it is FA now just as it was FA for the two year span before editor Silence wrote his personal version that lost the FA status. Thompsma edits on the intro have only made it better. This is an off the radar article, with limited interest among editors involved with evolution.... maybe it will be less contraversial than the last attempt.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth the bother? I am very sceptical (that's skeptical in American!) about Wikipedia's navel-gazing and self-awarded statuses. What difference would it really make? I fear it might be just asking for trouble. SNALWIBMA ( talk-contribs ) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The only concrete outcome of the little FA star is the chance for a one day display on the main page. I agree with JimmyButler: it would be nice to regain FA status. Perhaps an FA nomination is worth it. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard that Term before, perhaps I'm just bored and should seek abuse elsewhere.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The FA gauntlet is quite a time consuming ordeal, that's my main problem with it. I think the most important thing is that the article remain in good shape. I recall some of the controversies the first time around and I doubt they'd be repeated. But I never have understood why the article was almost totally dismantled later-I don't know what triggered it. Professor marginalia(talk) 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I welcome collaboration on working to improve the article. However, I would note two things. First, actually looking at the contents of the two versions of the article (as opposed to simply looking at their historio-bureaucratic contexts), it is simply impossible to conclude that the original version is actually better as an 'introduction to evolution,' no matter how flawed my revisions may have been as well. (Personally, I think they were pretty good aside from needing much more referencing (a fault shared by the current version). But I quite welcome critique.)
Second, your version of history does not seem to correspond to the way things actually occurred. You seem to think that this article was completely unproblematic; a trouble-making, nit-picking admin then showed up and started impetuously rewriting the article. Then people saw the horrible state of the new page and promptly de-FA'd the article. While this would make for an amusing farce, it is the opposite of what actually occurred, both in substance and in sequence. Noting the truly abysmal state of the current article (then as now), I sought to initiate a discussion to improve the page. User:Thompsma, perchance a bit over-eagerly, ran with my claim that the article as it stood (and stands) is not up to FA standards, and nominated it for delisting. At that point I had done no real edits to the page, wishing to hash out various matters in conversation first; but a number of editors strongly urged me to simply proceed to make my proposed changes then, while the FAR process was still underway, on the grounds that the function of FAR is to improve articles, not just to passively critique them. (De-listing, when it occurs, is merely a side-effect.) I and the other editors who recommending de-listing Introduction to evolution did so while fully considering both versions of the article, before and after my rewrite; consensus was that neither one was yet anywhere near FA-quality, even though the later version was a substantial improvement (which a number of editors had at that point already gone over and contributed to). (And no, you won't go blind or grow hairy knuckles if a preposition is what you happen to end a sentence with. Even Shakespeare did it. :) We are indeed such things as dreams are made on!)
Your reversion was well-intentioned but profoundly misguided, derived from a misunderstanding of the events that surrounded that revision. That you have not noticed or considered the advantages of the revised structure over the original (why, exactly, should an 'introduction' to the basic concept of evolution spend most of its time discussing footnotes in the history of science and trying to 'prove' evolution(???) with a section called 'evidence for evolution'...?) suggests to me either a very cursory look at those proposed revisions, or an assumption that antiquity automatically trumps novelty. This may be quite reasonable as a heuristic generalization, but it can't replace making an actual positive case for the arbitrary inefficacies of the status quo rursus. -Silence (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the complete removal of an FA article by a single author who deemed it unworthy is highly unusual irregardless of the sequence of events. I did supply a rather lengthy, detailed list of concerns which remained unaddressed for a significant amount of time. These were not differences in philosophical views; but rather specific concerns regarding content and style. The lack of referencing; especially in an article this controversial was negligent. This version is adequately referenced, it would have never passed the FA standard under such intense scrutiny if it was not. Personally, I found the section "What Evolution is not..." even more defensive and antagonistic in nature than the current version's summation of the many lines of evidence that support the theory. The FA status was the result of input from numerous contributors; I'm not convinced that they were all misguided. There is always room for improvement; the inclusion of random chance components as it relates to genetic reshuffling and the introduction rewrite by editor User:Thompsma demonstrates this. In fact, the addition of a section regarding many of the principals of Hardy-Weinberg that expand beyond natural selection would be a positive addition. I was disappointed when that information was removed on the premise it was too complex. The historical approach is not a radical method of introducing readers to the theory; rather, a format based on the the vast majority of educational publications on this topic. I respectfully disagree with your analysis; this article, as it stands, is an excellent introduction to the concepts of evolution. It's unfortunate the FA status was lost under your version; before there was an opportunity to confirm my position.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"Introductory" type articles at wp suffer a kind of intrinsic category confusion that nobody can be faulted for not faithfully conforming to. However, this article emerged through a hyper-attentive gauntlet WP peer review and achieved a FA--so the "simply impossible to conceive" rational for dismantling it rings hollow. The imperial defenses of this dismantling, the challenge against "antiquity trumps novelty", seeks to presume an added benefit, a weighting, be granted to revolutionary approaches rather than traditional. Wikipedia policies do not favor radical "renovations" of topics. It encourages the free access to "the sum of human knowledge"--not some postmodernistic overthrow of it.Professor marginalia (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Illustration skirmish
There is now a little controversy about what dino to put in the top right corner. I would like to see a picture that better conveys that Evolution is a Dynamic process of change. This illustration from Horse evolution i maybe not ideal, but at leas better than what we have seen so far. (IMHO) --Ettrig (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This image shows a representative sequence but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. Reconstruction, left forefoot skeleton (third digit emphasized yellow) and longitudinal section of molars of selected prehistoric horses
There was a more specific concern raised here regarding the dinosaurs proximity to lake environments which justified the revert back to the T-Rex. Long ago the goal was to find a visually stimulating image for an introductory article (and relevant as well). The loss of the Karen Carr image was disappointing (mis-communication over permissions for use). The T.Rex is not effective in the "visually stimulating" category - thus I for one am not opposed to the horse.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
