Talk:Current research in evolutionary biology

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Copied over fromm a proposed section to Evolution that kept getting readded. It's better to prepare it off-article, because this is in no way suitable for FA. User:Vanished user ^talk 20:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subsections

I propose deleting the various subsections as they stand, keeping just the intro. I would be fine with subsections like this in principle, but for this page they would have to focus much more on exactly what the current research is about, and not on summarizing what is often very old material that is in any case covered better by other pages. Joannamasel (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? A general principle here is that there is no deadline and there is no problem with inadequate material so long as it does not conflict with one of the major policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Of course you are correct that the content is unlikely to ever match the hopelessly optimistic article title, but it seems useful to provide some guidance on Wikipedia for very general research trends (which would definitely be out of place in a more generic article like Evolution). Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the material, now that I purged incorrect statements, are now so minimal that they are redundant with the simple links I included in the first part of the article. Parts deal exclusively with very old material, eg there have been no serious deniers of group selection for some time: the question is of finding an empirical research programme to match. A 1971 citation that some "continue to contend" is a bit old to support this. And the remainder is really all about the evolution of ageing, dressed up in different forms to give the impression that all sorts of topics are the evolution of ageing in disguise: I have already deleted some of this to give a more balanced, but rather minimal, view of some of those topics. I don't really want to get into that discussion, but I think they should take place on the evolution of ageing page, not here. When I go through all of these problems with the subheadings, there is literally nothing left, and it would be simpler to delete the lot, I just hesitated to do so large a deletion without discussion. Perhaps this page needs a different format for subheadings anyway, eg journals publishing evolutionary biology research; living evolutionary biologists etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannamasel (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I forgot to sign. Anyway, I want to add that the new intro I wrote does provide plenty of guidance and links for very general research trends, I included at least links to all topics I could find on the previous page.Joannamasel (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and delete the material in question in stages, commenting my reason for each of the deletions.Joannamasel (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edit is hard to follow. I appreciate you making it nicer to read so maybe we can work together to improve this? What do you mean by "there have been no serious deniers of group selection for some time"- sure there are... Many evolutionary biologists are contentious over this issue. Richard Dawkins is a prominent view. Also it's not group level selection that's gaining acceptance, but multilevel hypothesis.

I liked the old bullet point style list of issues which gave solid starting points for the reader to think about. You've replaced it with some very general categories and hand waving in your intro.

"Altruism and the level of selection" < I didn't see anything in your intro regarding this HUGE glaring problem with modern evolutionary theories, and implies group selection in some ways. Active area of research.

"Sexual reproduction" < Another issue, not yet adequately explained.

In your intro maybe we can split each part into concise focused pieces and then elaborate them. Eventually moving them into separate sections.

Take a look at Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy Genjix (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am aiming for is something, in keeping with the title of the article, that gives a neutral and balanced overview of the topics you would find if you attended large mainstream science meeting such as that of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the European Society of Evolutionary Biology, or the Society for Molecular Biology & Evolution. I think a page along these lines is needed, since professional evolutionary biologists and their daily work and surprisingly neglected in public discussions of evolution. A good recent example is the book What Darwin Got Wrong. Michael Ruse has written quite a bit about this phenomenon, eg a little in http://chronicle.com/article/What-Darwins-Doubters-Get/64457/, I can't find anything more focused on-topic off-hand. So what Dawkins says and emphasizes is besides the point. Dawkins is a science writer, not a science researcher, which gives him a very different perspective, and one less relevant for this specific page.

I have had many discussions about the group selection "debate" with other mainstream evolutionary biology researchers. Some formulations are clearly wrong, and some formulations are clearly correct. We all agree about which are which, even if personal preferences come into which of the correct formulations one prefers (eg multilevel vs inclusive fitness), but it doesn't matter, there is work showing the correct formulations are to a large extent equivalent. Even David Sloan Wilson has stopped complaining that group selection is not accepted, and now goes around giving talks about the need for a "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" to investigate why it took so long. The debate is over, and does not belong on a page about Current Research. The current page links to the cooperation page, which covers the topic, in particular that it is an open question to what extent group selection accounts for observed cooperation, and to what extent other explanations apply. This is an empirical research question, not one about the theoretical tenability of altruism and group selection.

Yes, I certainly admit that my categories are very general. However, the previous page dealt almost exclusively with the first category. The current organization is much more representative of research today. I would be happy to expand the page, sticking to the current organization or something like it, and keeping a focus on research questions rather than answers. But if we go that way, I would like to keep it representative, so that the overall impression is of "mainstream" rather than "fringe" current research. I think there is a real danger here. At the other extreme, a real danger is that if we really expanded every single thing I have included on the list, then the page would be too long. Because of these two dangers, I would be happy with the page in its current format, where it really acts as a list and reference to other pages, where more satisfactory and full-length explanations of each of the many topics can hopefully be found.Joannamasel (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you points. And agree with your views. I'll try to set out in formatting it nicer when I get time over the next few weeks. Let me know if you think any of my edits are destructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genjix (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]