![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive covers January - February 2007
I just wanted to say that I realize that this article is a work in progress, but I admire it enormously. Good job. I hope that this particular article doesn't prove to be an evolutionary dead end, so to speak. I hope it remains what it claims to be an "introduction to evolution" that is short and readily comprehensible for nonspecialists. I'm a fairly smart guy with a bit of education, but find some of the technical jargon in the main article to be difficult to digest, for instance. Anyway, again, kudos to the authors.-- Ggbroad 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I shoved this image in there but it is probably in the wrong place. We could shove cuvier and the fossil picture together too I think.
-- Filll 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done Silence for a much improved introductory paragraph! I think it's great - but we must be careful not to let it slip into something too technical and complicated. I wonder, for example, whether it's a good idea to introduce the term "natural selection" at this point, or whether this should be left until a bit later - it crops up already under "Darwin's idea", and maybe could be expanded a bit there. Is there a danger of confusing readers by throwing natural selection at them too early. Maybe keep the introduction very simple. Evolution means the change in organisms over generations. Offspring differ from their parents and from each other. Some of these different traits confer advantages, and these offspring will survive better. Populations therefore change and adapt. Don't spring the terminology on the redader just yet. Just a thought, a question, a wondering... Snalwibma 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is my 2 cents: I would suggest an ultra elementary lead, then a slightly more technical introduction section and therefore we do both: easy lead PLUS give them content for later. I know it might not be standard format for WP, but chemistry does it and so does physics. They lead will be very much of a gentle overview, no technical requirements. If they get through that, we hit them with the introduction where they get common descent and natural selection. That way we preserve a very gentle lead, but still give them more content for later if you think that is what they need. I am ambivalent if they need it but I will bow to the experts. This sounds bad to argue violating WP formatting rules with an expert editor and administrator, but I dont mind if we break some rules here: I just want it accessible. Will that hurt the FA status of evolution itself? I am probably suggesting a no-no.-- Filll 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok well I am willing to provisionally try it. My two other main co-editors might need to say something too. But it is worth a try. It is not like it is set in stone or anything, and we wont hurt anything by trying it. I really have no idea how much traffic this page gets anyway. I would be very curious to know.-- Filll 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I didnt think so. I also am less than thrilled with excessive parenthese in text, but I am willing to see where it leads.-- Filll 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We are all still here, and rightly proud of this little article. I would estimate that probably 75% of the contributions at least were due to Random Replicator, and another 20% from Snalwibma. I just provided some cheerleading and formatting really. But I still think it is beautiful, nevertheless. I would put it in my 10 favorite articles I have helped with.-- Filll 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the lead looks pretty good to me.-- Filll 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Minor consideration:
Current:
In this way, differences accumulate and can eventually lead to major changes in a population of organisms.
Suggested Rewrite:
In this way, differences that accumulate over time can lead to major changes in a population of organisms.
Logic: Eliminate the possible contradiction: the term "can" implies it might while the term "eventually" may be perceived as it will. Also "time" is a good word to squeeze in when discussing evolution.-- Random Replicator 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well the intro is the most important part, since most people by far will only read the intro and go no further. I like what you did above to that sentence.-- Filll 15:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha...I do get into some tussles. And you probably dont know them all. But it helps me to understand what the "other side" is thinking and to sharpen my arguments. I do wonder about the modern suggestion that there are some Lamarckian processes going on. What is the formal word for that? It is probably too advanced for this introductory article.-- Filll 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I take that as a no go on the sentence revision :) -- Random Replicator 16:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
'In this way, differences can accumulate over time, leading to major changes in a population.' ????-- Random Replicator 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I went to the place where I obtained them and they are still in those articles. If there was a real fair use challenge, they would not be in any WP articles and they would not be available in the data base. So restored them.-- Filll 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather excited about the moth pictures since the peppered moth is used in every text book in the country as an example of natural selection. Came from Wiki commons so the the copyright police can keep their clickers off of them. I am not pleased with my formating. The text that follows Hardy Weinberg looks good up to the point that examples a) .... and b)..... drop down and shift to the left. It works for now. --
Random Replicator
00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? They were taken with a camera of course. -- Filll 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that appears to be correct, but it is basically irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Sorry.-- Filll 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Haeckel image. i agree it is inaccurate. Definitely a case of conformation bias for the idea of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. While this might be an interesting historical aspect of evolution a link to that is enough for this article. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article states "Some religious persons and groups object to evolution on religious grounds, and propose Creationism as an alternative view of the origin of the species on earth. A variation of such beliefs called Intelligent design claims that the variety of life forms that is observed on earth is the result of the actions of an outside intelligent agent, such as extraterrestrial intelligent beings or a God or set of gods."
As I understand it creationism is different from ID in that creationism doesn't state any process but that species were created fully in-tact. ID says that evolution did occur but that it was directed and not via natural selection. So I don't know that it is correct that ID is a variation on creationism, but a seperate idea.
Creationists believe in a young universe, but ID proponents do not.
I seem to see them lumped together all the time and I think there it reflects a bias in that a creationist is happy to reject scientific evidence but ID does not. It simply interprets it differently (sure it's unpopular and widely condemned in the scientific community, but it's still different then creationism). Personally I think ID is interesting but darwinistic evolution may be correct or directed evolution may be correct...of course the reason people argue over this is not over the theory but over a battle concerning a theistic vs. atheistic world view.
IMO, theists waste their time making a big deal about it because it's really irrelevant. I find the evidence of cosmology and the nature of consciousness far more compelling in putting forward a theistic argument then the details of evolutionary process. At the same time I find atheists reject any criticism with religious vigor.
Anyway, I want to propose that ID not be characterized as a "variation" of creationism, because if you fairly look at them (even if you think both are a complete joke) you will see they are not the same at all.
A second thing I want to ask about in the "misconceptions" section it says:
"Evolution does not imply any "progress" towards an ultimate goal. In fact, evolution is not goal driven. Organisms are merely the outcome of random mutations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at that time."
I think that evolution does have a goal, it's "goal" is to transmit genetic information between organisms. That's a minor point but I wanted to throw it out there. - AbstractClass 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My responses to AbstractClass:
Snalwibma 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda.."
"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene."
"The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.[36] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.
I see no need great need to edit. I don't think we are laying bait for controversey. Not to be apologetic, but, I would prefer if we minimized inflamatory statements. Not seeing one here. Thoughts? -- Random Replicator 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Prior edit of vestigal, although accurate, forces an expansion of the introduction with excessive detail. Vestigal is discussed later in the document. If need be modifications and improvements can occur there. Seemed simplier to me (and for the reader) to drop the reference to vesitgal in the intro sentence as it is not critical to setting up the following passages. Thus avoiding the need define in such detail. Nothing lost as I can see by simply referring to genetic and anatomical comparisons in a general sort of way. If this makes no sense ... you would need to compare recent edits in "history". If it still makes no sense it is because I am indeed clueless: In fact let me go back agrab the sentence. -- Random Replicator 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Before: Current species also provide evidence, with the many genetic and anatomical similarities that exist between them, and any vestigial structures they carry. These structures no longer serve the main function they served in previous generations, although they may still serve a function.
After: In addition, studies involving anatomical and genetic comparisons between present day species serve as evidence for evolution.
Rework or revert as you see fit. -- Random Replicator 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Gilbert and Sullivan put it, 'Darwinian man though well behaved is really but a monkey shaved!' I am wondering about a page of evolution quotes, with some explanatory material as well and historical context so it is just not a list of quotes.-- Filll 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just read that the species on opposite sides of the great wall of China have diverged because there is a barrier. Comments?-- Filll 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure it should remain, but it amuses me.-- Filll 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok I moved it to just above the summary. I do not know if in the main body we should mention where these well known one-liners are from or not. But oh well, lets see if anyone notices.-- Filll 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did. I have put a bunch more on Wikiquote. I have some doozies I found I might use in some of my other articles-- Filll 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Our scientist keep disappearing???? Yet they remain on the main entries within Wikipedia. I am not all that up on rights of use; what am I missing here? Is it at Admin -thing where you delete without explanation... sort of omni-potent. -- Random Replicator 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked on the Gould picture and it is under a copyleft not a copyright, and free to use as long as it is attributed to where it is from, which you will see if you click on his picture. So I replaced it. I will see about T.D.-- Filll 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a problem with spacing. I tried to fix it without much success. We need an expert and more fiddling I am afraid.-- Filll 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed
from the misconceptions section because:
Pcu123456789 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have watched in the last day a large number of changes take place. Some I think improved the text. Some made it harder to read. Some did not improve the English. Some I think introduced mistakes. I thought it was best to let them continue and then see what looked best. I might wait for another short while and see if this continues, or if it settles down again, except for maybe what appears to me to be an egregious error or two.-- Filll 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
A newly added sentence.
Coevolution may involve symbiosis, where two species live in close association, or an evolutionary arms race, for example.
In the spirit of simplicity, is this too much information? or Can it be incorporated it into the paragraph in a way that it is more clearly "self-defining". The symbiosis "where two species live in close association" seems to work ok. But the "evolutionary arms race" seems to be dangling there. -- Random Replicator 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Could some one add the definition of "viable" as a foot note. It appears in the definition of species... offspring that are viable and fertile. From my encounters as a teacher, its meaning is not always understood. Personally, I would rather leave the term in the text and foot note it than get too wordy with species definition. I would do it myself, but I would likely create formating issues. Thanks-- Random Replicator 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help),
[1] Darwin, C. R. ed. 1840. Fossil Mammalia Part 1 No. 4 of The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. By Richard Owen. P. 106]
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive covers January - February 2007
I just wanted to say that I realize that this article is a work in progress, but I admire it enormously. Good job. I hope that this particular article doesn't prove to be an evolutionary dead end, so to speak. I hope it remains what it claims to be an "introduction to evolution" that is short and readily comprehensible for nonspecialists. I'm a fairly smart guy with a bit of education, but find some of the technical jargon in the main article to be difficult to digest, for instance. Anyway, again, kudos to the authors.-- Ggbroad 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I shoved this image in there but it is probably in the wrong place. We could shove cuvier and the fossil picture together too I think.
-- Filll 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done Silence for a much improved introductory paragraph! I think it's great - but we must be careful not to let it slip into something too technical and complicated. I wonder, for example, whether it's a good idea to introduce the term "natural selection" at this point, or whether this should be left until a bit later - it crops up already under "Darwin's idea", and maybe could be expanded a bit there. Is there a danger of confusing readers by throwing natural selection at them too early. Maybe keep the introduction very simple. Evolution means the change in organisms over generations. Offspring differ from their parents and from each other. Some of these different traits confer advantages, and these offspring will survive better. Populations therefore change and adapt. Don't spring the terminology on the redader just yet. Just a thought, a question, a wondering... Snalwibma 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is my 2 cents: I would suggest an ultra elementary lead, then a slightly more technical introduction section and therefore we do both: easy lead PLUS give them content for later. I know it might not be standard format for WP, but chemistry does it and so does physics. They lead will be very much of a gentle overview, no technical requirements. If they get through that, we hit them with the introduction where they get common descent and natural selection. That way we preserve a very gentle lead, but still give them more content for later if you think that is what they need. I am ambivalent if they need it but I will bow to the experts. This sounds bad to argue violating WP formatting rules with an expert editor and administrator, but I dont mind if we break some rules here: I just want it accessible. Will that hurt the FA status of evolution itself? I am probably suggesting a no-no.-- Filll 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok well I am willing to provisionally try it. My two other main co-editors might need to say something too. But it is worth a try. It is not like it is set in stone or anything, and we wont hurt anything by trying it. I really have no idea how much traffic this page gets anyway. I would be very curious to know.-- Filll 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I didnt think so. I also am less than thrilled with excessive parenthese in text, but I am willing to see where it leads.-- Filll 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We are all still here, and rightly proud of this little article. I would estimate that probably 75% of the contributions at least were due to Random Replicator, and another 20% from Snalwibma. I just provided some cheerleading and formatting really. But I still think it is beautiful, nevertheless. I would put it in my 10 favorite articles I have helped with.-- Filll 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the lead looks pretty good to me.-- Filll 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Minor consideration:
Current:
In this way, differences accumulate and can eventually lead to major changes in a population of organisms.
Suggested Rewrite:
In this way, differences that accumulate over time can lead to major changes in a population of organisms.
Logic: Eliminate the possible contradiction: the term "can" implies it might while the term "eventually" may be perceived as it will. Also "time" is a good word to squeeze in when discussing evolution.-- Random Replicator 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well the intro is the most important part, since most people by far will only read the intro and go no further. I like what you did above to that sentence.-- Filll 15:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha...I do get into some tussles. And you probably dont know them all. But it helps me to understand what the "other side" is thinking and to sharpen my arguments. I do wonder about the modern suggestion that there are some Lamarckian processes going on. What is the formal word for that? It is probably too advanced for this introductory article.-- Filll 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I take that as a no go on the sentence revision :) -- Random Replicator 16:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
'In this way, differences can accumulate over time, leading to major changes in a population.' ????-- Random Replicator 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I went to the place where I obtained them and they are still in those articles. If there was a real fair use challenge, they would not be in any WP articles and they would not be available in the data base. So restored them.-- Filll 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather excited about the moth pictures since the peppered moth is used in every text book in the country as an example of natural selection. Came from Wiki commons so the the copyright police can keep their clickers off of them. I am not pleased with my formating. The text that follows Hardy Weinberg looks good up to the point that examples a) .... and b)..... drop down and shift to the left. It works for now. --
Random Replicator
00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? They were taken with a camera of course. -- Filll 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that appears to be correct, but it is basically irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Sorry.-- Filll 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Haeckel image. i agree it is inaccurate. Definitely a case of conformation bias for the idea of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. While this might be an interesting historical aspect of evolution a link to that is enough for this article. David D. (Talk) 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article states "Some religious persons and groups object to evolution on religious grounds, and propose Creationism as an alternative view of the origin of the species on earth. A variation of such beliefs called Intelligent design claims that the variety of life forms that is observed on earth is the result of the actions of an outside intelligent agent, such as extraterrestrial intelligent beings or a God or set of gods."
As I understand it creationism is different from ID in that creationism doesn't state any process but that species were created fully in-tact. ID says that evolution did occur but that it was directed and not via natural selection. So I don't know that it is correct that ID is a variation on creationism, but a seperate idea.
Creationists believe in a young universe, but ID proponents do not.
I seem to see them lumped together all the time and I think there it reflects a bias in that a creationist is happy to reject scientific evidence but ID does not. It simply interprets it differently (sure it's unpopular and widely condemned in the scientific community, but it's still different then creationism). Personally I think ID is interesting but darwinistic evolution may be correct or directed evolution may be correct...of course the reason people argue over this is not over the theory but over a battle concerning a theistic vs. atheistic world view.
IMO, theists waste their time making a big deal about it because it's really irrelevant. I find the evidence of cosmology and the nature of consciousness far more compelling in putting forward a theistic argument then the details of evolutionary process. At the same time I find atheists reject any criticism with religious vigor.
Anyway, I want to propose that ID not be characterized as a "variation" of creationism, because if you fairly look at them (even if you think both are a complete joke) you will see they are not the same at all.
A second thing I want to ask about in the "misconceptions" section it says:
"Evolution does not imply any "progress" towards an ultimate goal. In fact, evolution is not goal driven. Organisms are merely the outcome of random mutations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at that time."
I think that evolution does have a goal, it's "goal" is to transmit genetic information between organisms. That's a minor point but I wanted to throw it out there. - AbstractClass 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My responses to AbstractClass:
Snalwibma 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda.."
"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene."
"The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.[36] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.
I see no need great need to edit. I don't think we are laying bait for controversey. Not to be apologetic, but, I would prefer if we minimized inflamatory statements. Not seeing one here. Thoughts? -- Random Replicator 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Prior edit of vestigal, although accurate, forces an expansion of the introduction with excessive detail. Vestigal is discussed later in the document. If need be modifications and improvements can occur there. Seemed simplier to me (and for the reader) to drop the reference to vesitgal in the intro sentence as it is not critical to setting up the following passages. Thus avoiding the need define in such detail. Nothing lost as I can see by simply referring to genetic and anatomical comparisons in a general sort of way. If this makes no sense ... you would need to compare recent edits in "history". If it still makes no sense it is because I am indeed clueless: In fact let me go back agrab the sentence. -- Random Replicator 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Before: Current species also provide evidence, with the many genetic and anatomical similarities that exist between them, and any vestigial structures they carry. These structures no longer serve the main function they served in previous generations, although they may still serve a function.
After: In addition, studies involving anatomical and genetic comparisons between present day species serve as evidence for evolution.
Rework or revert as you see fit. -- Random Replicator 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Gilbert and Sullivan put it, 'Darwinian man though well behaved is really but a monkey shaved!' I am wondering about a page of evolution quotes, with some explanatory material as well and historical context so it is just not a list of quotes.-- Filll 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just read that the species on opposite sides of the great wall of China have diverged because there is a barrier. Comments?-- Filll 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure it should remain, but it amuses me.-- Filll 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok I moved it to just above the summary. I do not know if in the main body we should mention where these well known one-liners are from or not. But oh well, lets see if anyone notices.-- Filll 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did. I have put a bunch more on Wikiquote. I have some doozies I found I might use in some of my other articles-- Filll 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Our scientist keep disappearing???? Yet they remain on the main entries within Wikipedia. I am not all that up on rights of use; what am I missing here? Is it at Admin -thing where you delete without explanation... sort of omni-potent. -- Random Replicator 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I checked on the Gould picture and it is under a copyleft not a copyright, and free to use as long as it is attributed to where it is from, which you will see if you click on his picture. So I replaced it. I will see about T.D.-- Filll 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a problem with spacing. I tried to fix it without much success. We need an expert and more fiddling I am afraid.-- Filll 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed
from the misconceptions section because:
Pcu123456789 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have watched in the last day a large number of changes take place. Some I think improved the text. Some made it harder to read. Some did not improve the English. Some I think introduced mistakes. I thought it was best to let them continue and then see what looked best. I might wait for another short while and see if this continues, or if it settles down again, except for maybe what appears to me to be an egregious error or two.-- Filll 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
A newly added sentence.
Coevolution may involve symbiosis, where two species live in close association, or an evolutionary arms race, for example.
In the spirit of simplicity, is this too much information? or Can it be incorporated it into the paragraph in a way that it is more clearly "self-defining". The symbiosis "where two species live in close association" seems to work ok. But the "evolutionary arms race" seems to be dangling there. -- Random Replicator 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Could some one add the definition of "viable" as a foot note. It appears in the definition of species... offspring that are viable and fertile. From my encounters as a teacher, its meaning is not always understood. Personally, I would rather leave the term in the text and foot note it than get too wordy with species definition. I would do it myself, but I would likely create formating issues. Thanks-- Random Replicator 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help),
[1] Darwin, C. R. ed. 1840. Fossil Mammalia Part 1 No. 4 of The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. By Richard Owen. P. 106]