Talk:Evolution/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Variation 2 Genes 3 Recent Reversion 4 Revision 5 History of evolutionary thought 6 History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought 6.1 History of evolutionary thought up to the modern synthesis 7 Proposed move 8 What is evolution? 9 Proposal to merge misunderstandings section 10 Distinctions between theory and fact 11 Lead 12 New fork 13 Lead vote 13.1 Version 1 13.2 Version 2 13.3 Poll 13.4 Discussion 14 I admit to butchery 15 Armadillo image, etc. 16 3-D DNA Molecule 17 Current controversies within the field? 18 Selfish DNA hypothesis

[edit] Variation

I'm now on the variation section 1st para. I quite like the way this has been written. Some nice editing and thought has gone on here to get a pithy explanation. The changes I am porosoing and need some input on are:

1. Removing the word "new" in "new mutation". I dislike it because mutation implies a change therefore by implication it's new (to that genome). Also, it implies that a mutational change is one that has not occurred before (in any organism or population) which is most unlikely.

2. removing "at that site". The alleles will be at the same locus by definition (unless I've missed something!).

If both were removed this would reduce the paragraph by 4 words and I could then sleep well tonight 8)

Candy 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, but would like to see a quick explanation of mutations before removing new: since it's not been described much at that point, we can't presume things are too obvious. It needn't be in that section, of course. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean Adam. Although linked in the intro it isn't explained in the text at all briefly. It does raise the issue also that mutation has its own section further down the page. I'll think a little about this becasue there is a structural issue to the section - just noticing that the sub-heading "variation" would be better as causes of variation or sources of variation for instance. I'll do the "at the site" change - holding on the new (although to be truthful with or without it doesn't make any difference if mutation needs a bit of explanation). Anyone else have a view? Candy 06:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I suspect that the best thing we can do is simply set out a rule: Every term has to be explained at first occurence. It's probably the only way not to lose FA. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I (DNAunion) changed this sentence before but it has been changed back to:
Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely.
My understanding of fixation is that it is when an allele completely replaces the other, not when it is lost from a population. I propose the sentence be changed to:
Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely - or reaches a frequency of zero and is lost from the population. --DNAunion 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genes

Can we get away with not defining the word Gene? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The reader has to do some work. The article would be double the length and unreadable if every term was explained. We have to give the reader the fact they have some initiative. Candy 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reversion

An automated bot reversed User:Adam Cuerden recent changes to the article. Although I did not agree with them all, most of them looked pretty good in clearing up terminology and language. I didn't consider it vandalism. What happened? Here is the dif [[1]] Orangemarlin 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a partial restore of a version from a week ago, with a few modifications. I suppose it thought I was edit warring or something, instead of just trying to get this past the FA review. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think many of the current revisions have been hastily done. In cases - especially the into, the brevity and clarity is now replaced by an extended and weaker section. There are explanation in the introduction that do not need to be there. Not every term needs to be explained in an introduction. That is what the rest of the test is for. A simple link will do.

Phrases like "Natural selection is a key part of this process" are fluff imho. It dopes not add to the understanding of the article.

"Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not." Overwordy and imprecise. The original was marvellous to read. This is imho not.

This need reverting back or a clear explanation of why it was changed please.

Candy 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the old one listed terms without explaining things. Saying that "Natural selection and genetic drift dare the mechanisms it works by" - or whatever it was - does nothing to enlighten anyone who doesn't know what they are. Particularly egregious with genetic drift, which isn't generally taught in basic biology classes.

As well, we can't presuppose any significant studying of biology, as encyclopedias are often used by 12-14 year olds working on homework. This means briefly explaining things, particularly in the introduction, which should be the simplest (as in easiest to understand to the uneducated in biology, not necessarily as in short) and clearest statement of the point possible. Since we can't even presume High-school/A-level biology, we need to define terms as we go, as much as possible. As it is, I was wondering if "genetic code" was too much to leave unexplained. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't designed for 12-14 year olds. There is a junior version for that Adam. With respect to readership I still maintain that clarity and brevity always win out on constant explanation. Candy 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I claimed a bit too much, but, still, I'm not entirely convinced the study of biology is as widespread as it should be, and I, at least, think the lead benefits from being as accessible as possible, as, the way it is now or so, even if the rest is too advanced, the lead is welcoming, and possibly even gives enough information that the rest of the article can be understood. I suppose we could put up a request for comment or something, and ask if the lead over-explains, or if it's thought useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Adam, a wikipedia article is a document meant for the public: the opening should be clear, concise, set the stage and use a vocabulary that even a 12 year old could understand. Anything else is alienating and perhaps even pretentious. If there are terms in the introduction that need explaining, that's a signal that you are trying to do too much with it. Wikipedia may not be designed for 12-14 year olds, but it is designed for people who know nothing about the subject at hand. Same result, really, as far as the intro goes.Trishm 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

Since it has its own article, I've tried to trim History of evolutionary thought to a minimum. It probably needs a little more work, but I think this is a start:

[edit] History of evolutionary thought

Main article: History of evolutionary thought

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first convincing exposition^[1] of a mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: natural selection. However, while he was able to observe variation, infer natural selection and thereby adaptation, he did not know the basis of heritability. He could not explain how organisms might change over generations. It also seemed that when two individuals were crossed, their traits must be blended in the progeny, so that eventually all variation would be lost.

The blending problem was solved when the population geneticists R.A. Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane, married Darwinian evolutionary theory to population genetics, based on work by Gregor Mendel which revealed that certain traits in peas occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were inherited in a well-defined and predictable manner.^[2]

The problem of what the mechanisms might be was solved in principle with the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA.

Or what about

---

[edit] History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought

Main article: History of evolutionary thought

Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans. However it was not until the publication of scientific papers by Darwin and Wallace that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first explanation to the general public.^[1]

Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA.

I saw a lot of what was written as insignificant to the topic. The reader is directed to a more detailed article. As I am pushed for time I am not adding a few bits of the puzzle that are missing (particularly post Crick and Watson) but this is my suggestion for brevity. It needs some refining but there ya have it ... bare bones Candy 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Suggest one more sentence, along the lines of "Evolution theory has continued to develop and be revised as new information is found." Also shrink the Darwin pic a bit. Just a first thought, must cook my tea now, .dave souza, talk 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that because Darwin has a big head? 8) Candy 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I like yours far better, with Dave's addition. It's short and to the point. Add it in! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick it in as a working model for now. I'm sure it can be improved though. Both suggestions taken on - picture size and "continues to develop". Why am I tempted to add the line "Must cook my tea now." 8=) What is nice about this is it mentions that the concept is old but we can dispense with (for this article) irrelevances like Lamarckism and Erasmus Darwin. Candy 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Always inclined to tweak and expand, here's a rather more wikified option. I've flipped the Chas. Darwin photie and modified the caption to show how long he'd been working on it, with a link to the reaction article. The Modern evolutionary synthesis wasn't linked, so I've worked that into the second para. Thoughts? ... dave souza, talk 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of evolutionary thought up to the modern synthesis

Main article: History of evolutionary thought

Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans. However it was not until the publication of scientific papers by Darwin and Wallace that the scientific community had a robust explanation of the mechanism of evolution. Shortly after, the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin provided the first explanation to the general public.^[1]

However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when Gregor Mendel's work was integrated into the modern evolutionary synthesis. Mendel revealed that certain traits in peas occurred in discrete forms (that is, they were either one distinct trait or another, such as "round" or "wrinkled") and were inherited in a well-defined and predictable manner.^[2]

Later, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA.

Evolutionary theory continues to develop and be modified in light of new scientific discoveries.

OK. seems a much better caption. Why is the image reversed. Isn't that a bit naughty? Anyway changing the main page. Candy 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The reversing point came up at Talk:Charles Darwin#Picture where LiquidGhoul was positive it's ok with Public domain images – that article says "A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." and having had a look through image policy etc I've not found any restrictions. p.s. don't you like my revised text? There are quite a few wee changes: Evolution is a concept that is recorded by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans." becomes "Evolution as a concept was put forward by the the Ancient Greeks and Romans.", the scientific papers and Wallace are linked accordingly, and "However, Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance which was later revealed by Gregor Mendel." becomes "However, the mechanism for inheritance was only revealed when Gregor Mendel's work was integrated into the modern evolutionary synthesis." (Also I tried rewording the caption but am less convinced by that) Well, I thought it was pretty cunning.. sob.. dave souza, talk 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is evolution?

N6 stated that the edit I made to the effect that evolution is not purely biological is contentious. What is contentious about it? The term is well used in a number of fields which are not biological. In fact, I plan to write an article on evolution (not just a disambiguation page, but evolution itself - the mathematical model/systems process which is behind "Evolution as a theory for the Origin of the Species") and there is a conflict because this article is mislabelled. What am I suppossed to call the other article? (Beside the point but, in case you're wondering, as a guy pursuing a Master's degree in a systems related field, I plan on doing a lot of work on the various systems topics - evolution just happens to be one of them.)-Psychohistorian 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant - and I agree if this is right - that adding in rather long disambiguation statements muddles the issue a lot, and doesn't actually add much more than the disambiguation link at the top of the page. The article's confusing enough for new readers - I don't think it helps much to add, if you'll forgive the opinion, somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements into the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"somewhat pedantic disambiguation statements" While I understand that it might seem like a merely pedantic statement, there really is a significant distinction to be made.-Psychohistorian 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What is contentious is that you are adding unnecessary words that muddle the introduction. The otheruses template is there for exactly the same reason. This is an article on biological evolution and beyond mentioning that fact at the top of the page, it has no responsibility to discuss any other uses of the word "evolution".

To the layperson, "evolution" means biological evolution; it is entirely appropriate that this article be named the way it is. Nothing is mislabeled. Numerous articles on Wikipedia use potentially ambiguous page names to describe the most common usage, providing an otheruses template with a link to a disambiguation page.

I'm sure you can come up with a different name for your article. "Evolutionary modeling" and "Evolution (systems theory)" are two possibilities.

--N6 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We agree that the article is about biological evolution rather than just evolution. Consequently, it should be called biological evolution. Incidentally, if it were called biological evolution, we could create a seperate article called evolution which actually focused on evolution. While I agree with you that the layperson uses evolution incorrectly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not to perpetuate ignorance.

This article is mislabelled.-Psychohistorian 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be grossly inappropriate to move an article on a thing, of interest to a great many people (I believe Evolution consistantly ranks in the top 100 pages viewed) almost universally referred to as plain evolution (not biological evolution) out of that name, and replace it in that spot with an article that is, frankly, rather esoteric and far from the public view. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychohistorian: Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. This is a textbook example. N6 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I retract my objection. While I still think my point is right, I have to agree that whether or not my point is right, it's still constrained by policy.-Psychohistorian 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, I'd encourage you to discuss your objections on that article's talk page =) N6 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a single field of study where the word "evolution" out of context leads to the exact understanding of what is meant except in biology. Candy 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge misunderstandings section

Hey folks. After reading over the FAR nom, the articles length was one of issues brought up and I have to say I agree. I thought it might be worth discussing merging the majority of the misunderstandings section to another article, as opposed to cutting valuable info on evolution itself.

Obviously some mention of the misunderstandings should be left on the Evolution page, but ultimately I think it should be properly dealt with at length elsewhere, with a Main page link or some such given at the beginning of the section.

We have the Creation-evolution controversy article at our disposal, and since the controversy article exists to cover any notable controversy, and reasons for it, I think it stands to reason that the misunderstandings section really belongs there as one of those reasons anyway. In this case a lot of the material is already (necessarily) covered there, so the merge wouldn't be that drastic.

Finally, it seems a waste to give as much space to misunderstandings of the concept as to the basic processes of the concept.

Anyway, just a thought since something needs to be done anyway. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said something about this on my talk page recently, "There is no room for creationism imho in a biological article about evolution except to link to creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution or (depending on the scope of the article), link to any ID or link to historical perspectives (eg Scope's Trial or abuse of Darwin by the media of the day) etc under the umbrella that this is relevent to a reader under the context of science in society.

So, I would go along with spinning it off. Candy 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that spinning off most of this section would be a good way to trim down the article. I'm not sure whether Creation-evolution controversy is the place to put it, though. In practice, those who hold such misunderstandings are almost universally creationists, but the misunderstandings themselves aren't necessarily relevant to creationism.

Of course, there is already discussion of this type in that article, so perhaps my small objection is moot. N6 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We have to remember that the article doesn't need to be smaller. It is a fundamental topic in the life sciences and if it is bigger than expected that is appropriate. Proof-reading and diligent editing can remove perhaps 5% of the wording and improve clarity. Hack and slay can remove substantially more (that is remove fluff which is added which need not be there). I think the controversies are fluff for this article. Links out need to be made. (Sorry for repeating myself.) Candy 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivilent about it: It's a useful section, I think, but we can probably work some of it in to other sections more easily. That said, Creation-evolution controversy is heavy on talk about creationist claims, and very low on debunking of them, so it might make a useful addition there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Had another look and changed my mind. Move it to Creation-evolution controversy to remove some of the bias against evolution there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that moving misunderstood material to the other page makes sense. Trishm 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are misunderstandings beyond the Creationist controversy, so a brief summary here is fully appropriate, and should not be part of the Social and religious controversies section. Moving it to the "controversy" page sounds good in terms of addressing the balance, and most if not all of the misunderstandings are propagated by creationists, but a new article linked as main from both articles might avoid problems with non-creationist misunderstandings. Anyway, a handy resource I've just come across is Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution which is probably worthwhile as an external link. .. dave souza, talk 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is important to remember, as Dave points out, that although they have a high vocal presence on en.Wikipedia (NB it doesn't occur on the German pages) creationists are really a very minor issue. There are other more important misconceptions. Candy 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered here if it might not be best to have a couple of paragraphs saying a controversy exists with a link or two. Look at what we did on Introduction to evolution. I would like to eventually propose a much better version of the controversy article and subarticles so that information would be more easily found on this topic. I would rather this article be mainly preserved for the science. Just MHO.--Filll 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the controversy should be linked. A couple of paragraphs is too little to do it justice and too much for a brief mention. A sentence or two at most. Candy 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinctions between theory and fact

Could somebody explain why (see diff [2] and [3]), verifiable, citable material was removed, and the rest of the uncited material in the section was kept? Even the bot recognized this as vandelism.

For example, Ronald Reagan quipped during the 1980 presidential campaign, "Well, [evolution] is a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed."^[3][4]

5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot

I don't think what Reagan said is particularly notable anyway; beyond being senile at the time, honestly, he's just not that big a figure in the field. Maybe its worth noting, maybe not. Titanium Dragon 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan to introduce an abbreviated Reagan quote in the rewritten main Evolution as a theory and fact article. We just don't have the room for it here, however.--Filll 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of Evolution as theory and fact that you lifted it from?--Filll 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. It is on my rough draft of my rewrite of that article. So do not get too upset. Just give it a rest. --Filll 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about Ronald Reagan's observation at Evolution as theory and fact. Strange that new users who have not previously contributed to this article are allowed to come in and vandelize. 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot

I would presume this was removed because it's an unjustified and misleading statement by a nonscientist. Ironically, the citation provided uses the quote as an example of something Reagan said that is completely out of sync with the reality in the scientific community. It has no more place here than any other misleading quip from any other famous person. N6 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be the perfect quote in a section that is attempting to debunk misunderstandings of "nonscientists", then. 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot

Oh, I see, block-evading champion VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) is back again. Other editors are discouraged from feeding this troll. N6 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User N6 is a sockpuppet suspect. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/N6 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) YouNeedASmackBot

Oh give me a break. Do you note anything on our pages? But I am adding you to the VacuousPoet list of suspects.Orangemarlin 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I have restored the lead to a version of a week ago, since in that week, it's been reverted to one from October, and, as stated on the FA review now ongoing, that version was a violation of WP:LEAD, and was sufficient reason to lose FA. I've also added in a quick gloss of mutation, per discussion on "Variation" above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-restored to a version from 3-days ago, having found the exact point where it was reverted to approximately October: [4]. I'm going to try and find the version reverted to, and point up this sneaky revert. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a little excessive. Rather, I should say "please label reverts back to a (modified?) previous version as such, when possible. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New fork

Since misunderstandings and controversy are not directly relevant to the study of evolution but are more iterative, I have content forked them to a new article. Please help improve misunderstandings about evolution. Especially needed are categories and external links/resources. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 16:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the modern synthesis is a major achievement of modern science -- this seems dubiously appropriate to me. I'm going to replace it with something a little more specific and NPOV. If anybody has a problem with that, don't hesitate to yell. N6 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To be consistent with the standard answer as at #holocaust denial above, would'nt it be best to rename it Misunderstandings and controversies ? .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution--Filll 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead vote

Please vote for one of the two leads that keep getting switched between, as I don't want to edit war, and this seems a fair way to do it:

[edit] Version 1

Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.^[5][6]

The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation caused by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Through genetic drift, the frequency of heritable traits changes randomly. Through natural selection, organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce will have more offspring, passing these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer.^[5][7][8] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.^[9]

An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next.^[9] With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.^[10][11][12]

[edit] Version 2

Evolution is the process in which some inherited traits in a population become more common relative to others through successive generations. This includes both pre-existing traits as well as new traits introduced by accidental changes or damage (collectively called "mutations") to the genetic code that produces a trait. Over time, the processes of evolution can lead to speciation: the development of a new species from existing ones. All organisms are related by common descent as a result of speciation from a single ancestor. ^[5][13]

Natural selection is a key part of this process. Since some traits or collections of traits allow an organism to survive and produce more offspring than an organism lacking them, and genes are passed on by reproduction, those that increase survival and reproductive success are more likely to be passed on in comparison to those genes that do not. Therefore, the number of organisms with these traits will tend to increase with each passing generation.^[5][14][15] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.^[9]

Other mechanisms of evolutionary change include genetic drift, or random changes in frequency of traits (most important when the traits are, at that time, reproductively neutral), and, at the population level, immigration from other populations can bring in new traits ("gene flow") and the founder effect, in which a small group of organisms isolated from the main population will have more of the traits of the founders for many generations after isolation, even when some of the traits are detrimental.

An outline of the theory of natural selection was jointly presented to the Linnean Society of London in 1858 in separate papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Detailed support for the theory was then set out in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of different versions of genes, known as alleles, within a population from one generation to the next.^[9] With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.^[16][17][18]

Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

• Version 2 Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1-Filll 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC) They are not too different, but I lean towards shorter. The last paragraph looks to me like it should be divided up a bit. I would like it shorter. I think Silence might have some useful comments on these leads.--Filll 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Peers at Version 1.* You know, actually, that's pretty good. I had missed some of the modification. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

They both are so much better than what we had a few months ago, it is not even funny. Progress is definitely being made.--Filll 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Version 1 Silence 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1 reads more crisply--I like succint intros. The sentence about common descent is much clearer in 1 vs. 2, too. -- Scientizzle 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1 - See discussion for reasons Candy 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1 like Scientizzle said, its more crisp. While its more jargon-heavy, I think that's a benefit (by the precision and conciseness that it offers) whose detriments are easily overcome by making them wikilinks.-Psychohistorian 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1 I love the conciseness.Orangemarlin 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1. The two versions have substantially the same content, and 1 is a better piece of writing. As Fowler says, "direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid." Tevildo 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Version 1 The first sentence is clear and concise, and hooked me straight away.Trishm 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

(edit conflict) Could you explain to me why you prefer Version 2, Adam? I honestly don't see any advantages to it; it's less accessible to readers, has more ambiguous and gramatically wanting phrasings, much longer, and has more non-basic (and even trivial) information, while lacking some vital information. Perhaps if we discussed your concerns with my version, we could find ways to improve it; and if we discussed yours, we could find ways to incorporate important information that my version loses into an early section of the article. There's nothing wrong with compromise. Consensus-building discussion is more important in the Wikipedia editing process than simple popularity polls, though I see no problem with a straw poll to find out where people stand now. -Silence 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*cough* because my mind skipped over the middle sentence as it's the end of a very long day, so I thought it was a different version. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I admit to butchery

The section on "History of Modern Evolutionary Thought" was reverted after accusations that it was butchered. I spent some time (about an hour) rewriting it to make some sort of prose that read well and was as brief as possible. Since then I have changed my mind and gone back to even graeter butchery. Here are the reasons:

One of the comments to retain FA status was to reduce this section. After some discussion (see errmmm discussion) I think a few of us had nailed down a fair version. It was reverted. Accusations of butchery ... infamy, infamy .. they've got it in for me! When I had attempted a half-way house (not really certain that works well most of the time as a conflict resolution BTW) I butchered it again. This part clearly repeated things about Darwin-Wallace and Mendel that were stated previousl in the article.

Not pointing fingers (you can see the history) it would be nice if people didn't do reverts without reading the discussion and keeping abreast of the current progress on an article (ie this article). It also ended up back as History of evolutionary thought which was incorrect as the prior version only touched a small part of it. The current version hits (essentially) Darwin-Wallace and afterwards which I feel is more appropriate for the article. Candy 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, cranky and tired. Candy 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert, I proposed an entirely new (and heavily summarized from past versions) section. You, and whoever else suggested it, are simply mistaken in thinking that making this section so excessively short is an improvement. If this article was proposed for FA with such a stubby "History" section, I would be forced to oppose its nomination.

The history of evolutionary thought is one of the most important aspects of it; certainly the "History" section is hundreds of times more important than the "Evidence" section, yet the Evidence section is sprawling at this point. If you really want to shorten this article to a more reasonable seize, then start attacking sections like "Selection and adaptation" and the "Evidence of evolution" sections. There you'll (arguably) be benefiting the article; shortening the "History" section, in contrast, is damaging it, regardless of what comments the article's gotten on past FA reviews.

Ideally, the "History" section should be about as large as our current "Academic disciplines" section (3-5 nice-sized paras); the section was much larger when it got the comment to shorten it, which was bad, but now it's so short that it's in an even worse state than when it was too large. -Silence 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I acually crossed out the comment silence as you see before you posted. However, perhaps you would be so kind as to use the discussion area and share your thoughts clearly before or after your edits. It's hard enough to keep sane reviewing this article after all the recent sockpuppetry and creationist revisons than to have someone make more reversions and changes without explaining themselves. Candy 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to discuss or explain any edits that anyone has any issue with. I don't have enough free time to painstakingly detail every single edit I make ahead of time, since most are uncontroversial, but I'm certainly willing to go over any which anyone finds objectionable. -Silence 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame, becasue this is an article that needs time and good communication to improve it. 8( Candy 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just offered both my time and communication in improving it. But I plan to make hundreds of edits to the article; I don't have time to discuss all of them, and I can't psychically anicipate all the ones that will be controversial ahead of times, so it's easier on all parties for us to discuss them as problems come up, rather than my spamming this Talk page with dozens of pages of painstaking details for each one before an issue even arises. -Silence 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we should let silence take a whack at it and see how it looks. He has the background and experience in this kind of thing. It is not as though things cannot be reverse later if needs be. But if you look at the FA page on this article, he has a pretty ambitious program of editing planned out.--Filll 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, anything I do can certainly be reverted if it crosses the line. Since we're entering into the beginning of an FA review, this seems like the perfect time to start implementing some major changes, so we have as much time as possible to discuss any controversial ones. -Silence 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could do one of those lists of things that need to be done to improve the article, then cross them off. I really think this is one beautiful article. I would marry it if were, well, you know, human. And a woman.  :) Orangemarlin 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is Orangemarlin you might marry it but you know that within a few months it wouldn't be the same. The romance would be over and the woman would you know ... seem different. There was simply too much variation in her, When you were introduced to her it all seemed fine but she came with a lot of history. There were a lot of people claiming she was divine and you fell for it. After a while, you too saw her drift away from you. Her relatives were odd, rather primitive in many respects, some seemed to be throwbacks to another age while others were simply spineless. All in all, it's a bad idea ... and I'll leave that problem about what sex you found here chromosomes were when you got her jeans off on the honeymoon for another time. Candy 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armadillo image, etc.

Is there any special need for the armadillo image in this article? It brings a lot of clutter, and very little necessary and unique information, to the page. At the very least, if we keep it I'd argue that we should both move it to a different part of the article and dramatically shorten its caption.

Also, I'm thinking we should remove 1 or 2 of the images in "Evidence of evolution", because they all currently deal with aquatic species and thus are a bit redundant. Any objections? We can replace them with more varied images of other types of evidence of evolution; there are plenty to choose fom already at Evidence of evolution, for starters. -Silence 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one else wants it, I would steal it for Introduction to evolution--Filll 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

lol --- Filll I'm glad to see you are still a supporter for the 'common man'. Sure ... we will take their rejects!!!! I thought I would let the article settle awhile ... I am impressed that it is holding its own. Is it apathy that has spared us the firestorm of criticism or we that good?!?! I sent it out to my science teacher contacts for review (without claiming ownership) and they came back with positive reviews. A couple thought it should address LaMarckism and the misconception of acquired characteristics. A common problem among high school students. "The appendix will disappeared because it is not needed". If anyone reading would like to write something up? Introduction to Evolution. Several commented about the excess Dawkin's resources; all are excellent for lay-people... rahter than removing I wish someone well read on this topic would suggest a few more. Also, one of more more reliable critiques questioned the lack of citations. My argument is that it is a general introduction which translates to 'common' knowledge. Again, if anyone reading this has a different perspective --- combined with solutions; we are listening. We are not dogmatic --- with the exception of a desire to maintain readibility.--66.56.207.111 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Comments were added by: --Random Replicator 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow the Introduction to Evolution has really improved, and I have to say is much more encyclopedic than this article. Many of the improvements suggested for this article have been incorporated into the intro article and unfortunately never made it here. The resistance for any change in this article was so great for so long I am afraid a lot of apathy has set in. This article has always had the content but lacks in communication. Finally this article is being changed with little resistance which can be good and bad. GetAgrippa 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any specific aspects of Introduction to evolution you feel we should incorporate into Evolution? Are you correctly note, resistance to change has lessened, in large part thanks to the ongoing FA review and encouragement to experiment by editors like Filll. So now's the perfect time to propose and discuss implementing changes. -Silence 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3-D DNA Molecule

Nice, but it sure takes a long time download for some reason. Is it overkill? I mean DNA is important to evolution (the Selfish Gene and all that), but it's not exactly the most critical aspect of Evolution, and there are two DNA molecules represented.Orangemarlin 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If other users agree that it slows load time significantly, then it can be replaced with the non-moving version, and a link to the moving version can be provided in the non-moving one's image description for people with faster loading speed to visit and view directly. However, I don't have any trouble at all loading the image quickly; does anyone else? -Silence 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but on a broadband connection the page loads nice and fast, then the image takes a looong time (ok, perhaps a minute) to appear. It rotates so far then jerks back to the start, which is a little distracting – the idea of a static image with a link to the moving version sounds good. .. dave souza, talk 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Kind of like what Dave S said. It loads, then kind of stalls out, then continues to load, then stalls. I have a really high speed broadband, and I have rarely encountered this problem. But it really is no big deal. Orangemarlin 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We had the moving version on the Introduction to evolution article page but people complained about load time, so I replaced it with the stationary version. I personally have no problem with the moving version.--Filll 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current controversies within the field?

I don't see much in this article about the many current controversies within the field, or a link to another article in which I might read more about those. (There's a section on controversies with creationists, which is a separate matter.) I'm thinking of things like the frequently heated arguments between Gould, Lewontin et al vs Dawkins, Dennett et al on a number of matters. --Delirium 10:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

These controversies start to get pretty sophisticated. Maybe we need a separate article for those?--Filll 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We can list a few of the most important ones at the bottom of the "History" section; some, like the punctuated equilibrium issue, were formerly addressed in that section before the recent excess trimming. It shouldn't be difficult to at least very briefly touch on current controversies and disputes here; we can give dramatically more in-depth analysis in the lower sections of the daughter article History of evolutionary thought. -Silence 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd start with a paragraph, as short as possible, in an appropriate article until someone makes it into an article. Xiner (talk, email) 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had looked at History of evolutionary thought myself, but I didn't see anything there either. A few specific articles have sections on their controversial aspects (gene-centered view of evolution and punctuated equilibrium), but of course I can only find those if I already know that they're among the current controversies in the field. --Delirium 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selfish DNA hypothesis

With all the mention of transposons, pseudogenes and noncoding DNA seems we should mention Dawkins-Doolittle-Crick Selfish DNA hypothesis somewhere. Maybe too specific. GetAgrippa 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is a nested hypothesis too specific for this article the more I think about it. GetAgrippa 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As with some of Gould's work, you can view it either as a very specific nested hypothesis, or as the foundation for a major model of evolution. I think both are accurate. My solution would be to develop detailed articles on the selfish gene approach and another detailed article drawing heavily on Gould's last work, and have links to both here with brief summaries. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)