This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
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.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
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 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)
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.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move article, per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Evolution to biological evolution. There are many other kinds of evolution. 4.235.129.150 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot
Did you read the rest of Evolution as theory and fact that you lifted it from?-- Filll 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is some discussion of this at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution-- Filll 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
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:
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. [3] [4]
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. [3] [5] [6] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions. [7]
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. [7] 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. [8] [9] [10]
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. [3] [11]
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. [3] [12] [13] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions. [7]
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. [7] 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. [14] [15] [16]
Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
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.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
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 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)
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.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move article, per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Evolution to biological evolution. There are many other kinds of evolution. 4.235.129.150 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).5 January 2007 (UTC) User:YouNeedASmackBot
Did you read the rest of Evolution as theory and fact that you lifted it from?-- Filll 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is some discussion of this at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution-- Filll 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
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:
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. [3] [4]
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. [3] [5] [6] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions. [7]
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. [7] 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. [8] [9] [10]
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. [3] [11]
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. [3] [12] [13] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions. [7]
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. [7] 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. [14] [15] [16]
Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)