![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
To title a section "Misconceptions", as it was, is immediately stating a POV; and the use of hyperbolae and loaded words like "claim" compounded the problem. I have tried to tone down the POV language, but one really has to question whether this section should be here anyway and not in an article on creationists/ism. If it stays the section really needs a mature and balanced re-write without all the emotion. Just state their views without attacking them. Likewise state the Darwinist view without attacking them either. Then let people make up their own minds. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Creation Wiki, "view points" with no published paper support have no place on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.219.127 ( talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"Misconceptions" is a good name because thats what they are. Wikipedia is not a place for Pseudoscience. 142.22.115.59 ( talk) 18:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The article looks like an apology for not using the term "missing links" and a polemic against Creationism. It also quotes names of groups and people in a polemic fashion. Words such as "misleading", "inaccurate", "tactic employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory" do not conform to the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platonic Guardian ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Missing links is not a scientific term and relies upon misunderstandings of the science. Explaining the misunderstanding is fine for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps we could tone down some of the words that imply anti-evolution creationists are intentionally misleading instead of simply mistaken. Also I recommend reading:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That was the third one I wanted to put before but couldn't quite remember. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The contents can be moved to other sections of the article. The reason is that this is an article dealing with a scientific topic, and it should therefore not spend time discussing arguments against that scientific topic. Many of the creationist arguments are also redundant and can be merged to other sections. Below are my specific suggestions, and I would like input by other editors before moving forward.
*'There are no transitional fossils.' This is a claim made by groups such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. [1] [2] [3] [4] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature [3] but are also explained as a tactic employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called a "favorite lie" of creationists. [5] Some creationists dispute the lack of transitional forms. [6]
This paragraph can be removed entirely. In its place we expand the sections discussing examples of transitional fossils.
*'No fossils are found with partially functional features.' [7] Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs), [8] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).
Not sure about this paragraph. Discussing vestigal organs could be incorporated somewhere else.
* Henry M. Morris and other creationists have claimed that evolution predicts a continuous gradation in the fossil record, and have misrepresented the expected partial record as having "systematic gaps". Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. [3]
The contents of this section are already discussed in the Limitations of the fossil record section and is thus redundant. Perhaps some parts can be merged.
*The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972 [9] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the following observation of creationist misuse of his work to deny the existence of transitional fossils:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
Punctuated equilibrium can have its own section. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition, there already is an article dealing with Objections to evolution. This article is not about that. It is about transitional fossils. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC) And mentioning creationist organizations to begin with seems to violate WP:UNDUE. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The creationists deal with creation by God, not by science and evolution. If the topic is notable within the creationist viewpoint, the creationists can create and article and refer to it from creationist articles. The creationists, by definition, dismiss science, so it's pretty straight-forward to dismiss creationism from science articles. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 17:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I had some support so I moved ahead and removed the section. The section conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, however the main focus of the article is transitional fossils. There are several articles on creationism, objections to evolution and so forth. Those are the most appropriate place to discuss creationist objections to evolution. Not every article on a topic has to discuss the pseudo-scientific objections to it. Even mentioning them seems to be WP:Undue. Also, some of it was clearly redundant and did not help the reader understand the subject. I merged the following into the Limitations of the fossil record section:
Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. [3]
I entirely removed the section of Vestigal organs. It could be merged elsewhere:
Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs), [8] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
NS2645
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Lloyd2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Okay, I've read statements to this effect numerous times throughout this Talk page. This is an intellectually dishonest stance to take. Just because someone is a "Creationist" does not mean they are unable to put forth valid scientific arguments. Plenty of researchers have made advances in the field of sciences throughout history, who also believed in a creationist worldview. Saying "Well, the creationists can't make a scientific argument in THIS case" is equally dishonest.
Just read the comments up above. Many posters on this page are putting forth this extremely bias point of view. There appears to be little hope the article is being handled in any kind of fair or honest manner. 72.224.189.211 ( talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I hardly think you are qualified to judge what millions of people are or are not ignorant of. 72.224.189.211 ( talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The section contains judgmental language and does not accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Please do not remove the NPOV until the issue is resolved. Check these NPOV demands of wikipedia on the NPOV page:
Platonic Guardian ( talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I merged as much of the section as I could into the rest of the article and removed the rest. See the above section for details. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an article on the Level of support for evolution. This article is about transitional fossils and the science. So that's all it should deal with. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Evolutionary biology |
---|
![]() |
I wish to improve the article so that it eventually gets to GA and then FA status. I have a few questions/suggestions below.
After the article is improved enough, we can send it for peer review, and then for good article status. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the series of hominid images on the right from the article. They weren't that useful for this article, and they take up a lot of space. Could these images be of use to another article?
1850 |
![]() |
1900 |
![]() |
1950 |
![]() |
2002 |
![]() |
These diagrams plot the set of Hominine species known to science as of a given year. Each species is plotted as a box showing the range of cranial capacities for specimens of that species, and the range of dates at which specimens appear in the fossil record. The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made. |
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ithought you removed pictures, but you are right removing these. Pictures would be nice — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
142.22.115.61 (
talk)
21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
More later. -- Stfg ( talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for copy-editing, and for the improvements you've made so far! After the copy-editing is complete, I am going to send this to peer-review. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That's all for today. Back in about 12 hours. -- Stfg ( talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've finished now, but note that I haven't edited the "Comparison with intermediate forms" section, for the reason given above and also because the explanation is a bit strange: the first sentence of the "Transitional" bullet is about similarity to the derived relative, and the second is about morphological similarity to the common ancestor. How is the second saying the first "in other words"?
If you ever wanted to take this to FAC, you'd need to work on consistency of referencing style, including: harvard or not, cite templates or not, retrieved-on date format, ISBN hyphenation or not. But as far as I know these issues don't come up at GAN. -- Stfg ( talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Mammals, the only living therapsids, evolved in the Early Jurassic period. They radiated from a group of Mammaliaformes that is related to the symmetrodonts. The Mammaliaformes themselves evolved from probainognathians, a lineage of the eucynodont suborder.
The article treat examples differently. The first three give details of phylogeny and stratigraphy. The three last emphasize the anatomical traits that make them "transitional". Which one is more relevant? Thrinaxodon is almost entirely about anatomy. The Ambulocetus section mention only one a single trait (aquatic hearing), Tiktaalik not a single one. I think we should some common elements to each example. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add Thrinaxodon. I'm using this article as a guide to what transitional fossils to add. However the articles I would like to incorporate text from isn't as high quality as some of the other articles. I'm simply cobbling together text from various articles, so right now it's really a "work in progress". Which is why I'm posting it here. Feel free to make edits to it to improve it.
The most major problem sit that it's not clear to the casual reader why it's transitional or in any way special. I need to make that point without it turning into a copy of Evolution of mammals
The quote by Paleontologist is new text that I've included, make sure it is formatted properly. Be sure to check the source
Articles I'm incorporating text from:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(Feel free to edit the following section to improve it so that it can be good enough to include on the main page)
The cynodonts were a group of therapsids (often called "mammal-like reptiles," although not actually reptiles) very near to the origin of mammals.[[Cynodont#{{{section}}}|contradictory]] While having a lower jaw composed of several bones (mammals only have one), they had distinctly mammal-like dentition, including multi-cusped cheek teeth. [1] The teeth were, however, replaced continously as in reptiles. [2] Early cynodonts displayed other reptilian features, such as sprawling hind legs, a sideways-flexible lower back and a hip-bone connection much like that of a crocodile. citation needed The front legs, though, were more or less erect, and the feet rather mammal-like. Like most reptiles and monotremes, they laid leathery eggs.
Many early cynodonts, like the Triassic genus Thrinaxodon, show an amalgam of traits typical of transitional fossils. [3] Thrinaxodon was a genus of small cynodont whose fossils have been found in collapsed burrows, suggesting that it was one of the first cynodonts to burrow, a trait normally associated with mammals. [4] It also had secondary bony palate and a diaphragm, indicating that it was homeothermic or at least semi-homeothermic. Its small size suggests that it may have had an early form of fur, although no direct evidence of fur in cynodonts is known. [5]
The middle ear bones consisted solely of the columella ( homologous with the stapes in mammals) as in reptiles. The other ossicles had yet to evolve from the jaw joint into the mammalian arrangement, so it probably lacked the acute hearing of mammals. The brain filled the endocranial cavity, and pits on the skull suggest that Thrinaxodon may have had whiskers, [1] indicating that it had sharp senses typical of nocturnal animals.
If this text is more to your liking, I'll dig up refs for all the anatomical details. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 12:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(good to have when editing things here)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help), 3rd ed., 1966.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Are we using American or British English? I just skimmed for evidence and couldn't find any. In the section "The rise of plants", I've just expanded "mm" to "millimetres". If anyone wants to change that to the Americal spelling, please go ahead. -- Stfg ( talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The technical aspect of the article is a bit dry. I have thought about taking the various examples in the "History" section and use them to illustrate the techincal aspects, thus combining history and definitions in one go. Archaeopteryx is a fine illustration of the definition (one group giving rise to another). The same goes for Rhynia. Java man illustrates the great chain of being/missing link aspect well. I have considered writing a section on Ichthyostega the "fish-with-legs", which will be a wonderful illustration of "Transitional versus ancestral" problem. Is it a good idea, or will it just make the article "chatty". Petter Bøckman ( talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I suspect if I were to submit this to GA status review it might fail. What is needed? I recommend reviewing the peer review which has ended. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Writing is clear and direct. No sign of copyright issues. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | Lead ok. Layout ok. No peacock or weasel language. No embedded lists. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The key points are covered. The range of examples is suitably wide. Traditional and modern views are explained. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | Not sure the Runcaria section really gets across its point. A diagram (cp
Runcaria 'seed') would help.![]() |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Article covers the subject evenly and neutrally. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
Review is complete; missing citations now supplied. |
Please add any related discussion here.
Goodness gracious, they really did change up the GA page format! I should do this a bit more often.
I would say in general, you want to have at least one source per paragraph at the GA level. It's good practice: You really can't have too few citations. In particular, I would like to see more citations for the "Transitions in phylognetic nomenclature" and the Australopithecus sections; they seem to be the sparsest sections. If a citation covers more than one sentence, just put it at the end of the paragraph, and that should be fine. I've given several sections a quick copyedit for some grammatical and spelling mistakes, although I feel that the article as a whole could use a bit more fine polishing on the prose. It seems to hit all the spots content-wise though, and the images check out. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Contents There's a lot of good content in the article, but it is (to my mind) not presented in an order that make the article flow naturally. This has been bugging me for some time, I'll take a stab at rearranging it. If mu copyedits is not to peoples liking, feel free to revert my edits, but if so, please give a reason for doing so! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the status of this review? Little seems to have happened the past couple weeks, ideally both sides should be wrapping up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Found it! I found a source saying fairly much what I just wrote above. It's Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics from Palaeos website. I suppose it's borderline, but Palaeos is considered a reputable source in a number of other Wikipedia artickles. Read through it (it's short and readable, another one of Palaeos good points) and see if you think it is a relevant for this article. I'll include it if there's no objections. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm very unhappy with this. It isn't right to destabilise 3/4 of the way through a GA review. Please could the plan be discussed first. Also, please, please could you do section shuffling and text addition/alteration in separate edits. The change from "Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to an outdated view of evolution" to "Scientists, however, tend to avoid the term, as the term itself refers to an outdated view of evolution", which reintroduces the ugly duplication of "the term", is visible in the big diff, but how many other things are not visible because the section shuffling obscures the text comparison? This is too bad. -- Stfg ( talk) 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure 3 Cetacean/Whale links are really appropriate here - we have 1 vert, 1 Tiktaalik, 3 whale, 1 bird. Undue, probably. Would someone like to remove at least 2 of the whales? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
To title a section "Misconceptions", as it was, is immediately stating a POV; and the use of hyperbolae and loaded words like "claim" compounded the problem. I have tried to tone down the POV language, but one really has to question whether this section should be here anyway and not in an article on creationists/ism. If it stays the section really needs a mature and balanced re-write without all the emotion. Just state their views without attacking them. Likewise state the Darwinist view without attacking them either. Then let people make up their own minds. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Creation Wiki, "view points" with no published paper support have no place on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.219.127 ( talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"Misconceptions" is a good name because thats what they are. Wikipedia is not a place for Pseudoscience. 142.22.115.59 ( talk) 18:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The article looks like an apology for not using the term "missing links" and a polemic against Creationism. It also quotes names of groups and people in a polemic fashion. Words such as "misleading", "inaccurate", "tactic employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory" do not conform to the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platonic Guardian ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Missing links is not a scientific term and relies upon misunderstandings of the science. Explaining the misunderstanding is fine for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps we could tone down some of the words that imply anti-evolution creationists are intentionally misleading instead of simply mistaken. Also I recommend reading:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That was the third one I wanted to put before but couldn't quite remember. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The contents can be moved to other sections of the article. The reason is that this is an article dealing with a scientific topic, and it should therefore not spend time discussing arguments against that scientific topic. Many of the creationist arguments are also redundant and can be merged to other sections. Below are my specific suggestions, and I would like input by other editors before moving forward.
*'There are no transitional fossils.' This is a claim made by groups such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. [1] [2] [3] [4] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature [3] but are also explained as a tactic employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called a "favorite lie" of creationists. [5] Some creationists dispute the lack of transitional forms. [6]
This paragraph can be removed entirely. In its place we expand the sections discussing examples of transitional fossils.
*'No fossils are found with partially functional features.' [7] Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs), [8] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).
Not sure about this paragraph. Discussing vestigal organs could be incorporated somewhere else.
* Henry M. Morris and other creationists have claimed that evolution predicts a continuous gradation in the fossil record, and have misrepresented the expected partial record as having "systematic gaps". Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. [3]
The contents of this section are already discussed in the Limitations of the fossil record section and is thus redundant. Perhaps some parts can be merged.
*The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972 [9] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the following observation of creationist misuse of his work to deny the existence of transitional fossils:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
Punctuated equilibrium can have its own section. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition, there already is an article dealing with Objections to evolution. This article is not about that. It is about transitional fossils. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC) And mentioning creationist organizations to begin with seems to violate WP:UNDUE. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The creationists deal with creation by God, not by science and evolution. If the topic is notable within the creationist viewpoint, the creationists can create and article and refer to it from creationist articles. The creationists, by definition, dismiss science, so it's pretty straight-forward to dismiss creationism from science articles. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 17:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I had some support so I moved ahead and removed the section. The section conforms to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, however the main focus of the article is transitional fossils. There are several articles on creationism, objections to evolution and so forth. Those are the most appropriate place to discuss creationist objections to evolution. Not every article on a topic has to discuss the pseudo-scientific objections to it. Even mentioning them seems to be WP:Undue. Also, some of it was clearly redundant and did not help the reader understand the subject. I merged the following into the Limitations of the fossil record section:
Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. [3]
I entirely removed the section of Vestigal organs. It could be merged elsewhere:
Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs), [8] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
NS2645
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Lloyd2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Okay, I've read statements to this effect numerous times throughout this Talk page. This is an intellectually dishonest stance to take. Just because someone is a "Creationist" does not mean they are unable to put forth valid scientific arguments. Plenty of researchers have made advances in the field of sciences throughout history, who also believed in a creationist worldview. Saying "Well, the creationists can't make a scientific argument in THIS case" is equally dishonest.
Just read the comments up above. Many posters on this page are putting forth this extremely bias point of view. There appears to be little hope the article is being handled in any kind of fair or honest manner. 72.224.189.211 ( talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I hardly think you are qualified to judge what millions of people are or are not ignorant of. 72.224.189.211 ( talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The section contains judgmental language and does not accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Please do not remove the NPOV until the issue is resolved. Check these NPOV demands of wikipedia on the NPOV page:
Platonic Guardian ( talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I merged as much of the section as I could into the rest of the article and removed the rest. See the above section for details. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an article on the Level of support for evolution. This article is about transitional fossils and the science. So that's all it should deal with. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Evolutionary biology |
---|
![]() |
I wish to improve the article so that it eventually gets to GA and then FA status. I have a few questions/suggestions below.
After the article is improved enough, we can send it for peer review, and then for good article status. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the series of hominid images on the right from the article. They weren't that useful for this article, and they take up a lot of space. Could these images be of use to another article?
1850 |
![]() |
1900 |
![]() |
1950 |
![]() |
2002 |
![]() |
These diagrams plot the set of Hominine species known to science as of a given year. Each species is plotted as a box showing the range of cranial capacities for specimens of that species, and the range of dates at which specimens appear in the fossil record. The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made. |
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ithought you removed pictures, but you are right removing these. Pictures would be nice — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
142.22.115.61 (
talk)
21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
More later. -- Stfg ( talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for copy-editing, and for the improvements you've made so far! After the copy-editing is complete, I am going to send this to peer-review. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That's all for today. Back in about 12 hours. -- Stfg ( talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've finished now, but note that I haven't edited the "Comparison with intermediate forms" section, for the reason given above and also because the explanation is a bit strange: the first sentence of the "Transitional" bullet is about similarity to the derived relative, and the second is about morphological similarity to the common ancestor. How is the second saying the first "in other words"?
If you ever wanted to take this to FAC, you'd need to work on consistency of referencing style, including: harvard or not, cite templates or not, retrieved-on date format, ISBN hyphenation or not. But as far as I know these issues don't come up at GAN. -- Stfg ( talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Mammals, the only living therapsids, evolved in the Early Jurassic period. They radiated from a group of Mammaliaformes that is related to the symmetrodonts. The Mammaliaformes themselves evolved from probainognathians, a lineage of the eucynodont suborder.
The article treat examples differently. The first three give details of phylogeny and stratigraphy. The three last emphasize the anatomical traits that make them "transitional". Which one is more relevant? Thrinaxodon is almost entirely about anatomy. The Ambulocetus section mention only one a single trait (aquatic hearing), Tiktaalik not a single one. I think we should some common elements to each example. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add Thrinaxodon. I'm using this article as a guide to what transitional fossils to add. However the articles I would like to incorporate text from isn't as high quality as some of the other articles. I'm simply cobbling together text from various articles, so right now it's really a "work in progress". Which is why I'm posting it here. Feel free to make edits to it to improve it.
The most major problem sit that it's not clear to the casual reader why it's transitional or in any way special. I need to make that point without it turning into a copy of Evolution of mammals
The quote by Paleontologist is new text that I've included, make sure it is formatted properly. Be sure to check the source
Articles I'm incorporating text from:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(Feel free to edit the following section to improve it so that it can be good enough to include on the main page)
The cynodonts were a group of therapsids (often called "mammal-like reptiles," although not actually reptiles) very near to the origin of mammals.[[Cynodont#{{{section}}}|contradictory]] While having a lower jaw composed of several bones (mammals only have one), they had distinctly mammal-like dentition, including multi-cusped cheek teeth. [1] The teeth were, however, replaced continously as in reptiles. [2] Early cynodonts displayed other reptilian features, such as sprawling hind legs, a sideways-flexible lower back and a hip-bone connection much like that of a crocodile. citation needed The front legs, though, were more or less erect, and the feet rather mammal-like. Like most reptiles and monotremes, they laid leathery eggs.
Many early cynodonts, like the Triassic genus Thrinaxodon, show an amalgam of traits typical of transitional fossils. [3] Thrinaxodon was a genus of small cynodont whose fossils have been found in collapsed burrows, suggesting that it was one of the first cynodonts to burrow, a trait normally associated with mammals. [4] It also had secondary bony palate and a diaphragm, indicating that it was homeothermic or at least semi-homeothermic. Its small size suggests that it may have had an early form of fur, although no direct evidence of fur in cynodonts is known. [5]
The middle ear bones consisted solely of the columella ( homologous with the stapes in mammals) as in reptiles. The other ossicles had yet to evolve from the jaw joint into the mammalian arrangement, so it probably lacked the acute hearing of mammals. The brain filled the endocranial cavity, and pits on the skull suggest that Thrinaxodon may have had whiskers, [1] indicating that it had sharp senses typical of nocturnal animals.
If this text is more to your liking, I'll dig up refs for all the anatomical details. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 12:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(good to have when editing things here)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help), 3rd ed., 1966.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Are we using American or British English? I just skimmed for evidence and couldn't find any. In the section "The rise of plants", I've just expanded "mm" to "millimetres". If anyone wants to change that to the Americal spelling, please go ahead. -- Stfg ( talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The technical aspect of the article is a bit dry. I have thought about taking the various examples in the "History" section and use them to illustrate the techincal aspects, thus combining history and definitions in one go. Archaeopteryx is a fine illustration of the definition (one group giving rise to another). The same goes for Rhynia. Java man illustrates the great chain of being/missing link aspect well. I have considered writing a section on Ichthyostega the "fish-with-legs", which will be a wonderful illustration of "Transitional versus ancestral" problem. Is it a good idea, or will it just make the article "chatty". Petter Bøckman ( talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I suspect if I were to submit this to GA status review it might fail. What is needed? I recommend reviewing the peer review which has ended. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Writing is clear and direct. No sign of copyright issues. |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | Lead ok. Layout ok. No peacock or weasel language. No embedded lists. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The key points are covered. The range of examples is suitably wide. Traditional and modern views are explained. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | Not sure the Runcaria section really gets across its point. A diagram (cp
Runcaria 'seed') would help.![]() |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Article covers the subject evenly and neutrally. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
Review is complete; missing citations now supplied. |
Please add any related discussion here.
Goodness gracious, they really did change up the GA page format! I should do this a bit more often.
I would say in general, you want to have at least one source per paragraph at the GA level. It's good practice: You really can't have too few citations. In particular, I would like to see more citations for the "Transitions in phylognetic nomenclature" and the Australopithecus sections; they seem to be the sparsest sections. If a citation covers more than one sentence, just put it at the end of the paragraph, and that should be fine. I've given several sections a quick copyedit for some grammatical and spelling mistakes, although I feel that the article as a whole could use a bit more fine polishing on the prose. It seems to hit all the spots content-wise though, and the images check out. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Contents There's a lot of good content in the article, but it is (to my mind) not presented in an order that make the article flow naturally. This has been bugging me for some time, I'll take a stab at rearranging it. If mu copyedits is not to peoples liking, feel free to revert my edits, but if so, please give a reason for doing so! Petter Bøckman ( talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the status of this review? Little seems to have happened the past couple weeks, ideally both sides should be wrapping up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Found it! I found a source saying fairly much what I just wrote above. It's Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics from Palaeos website. I suppose it's borderline, but Palaeos is considered a reputable source in a number of other Wikipedia artickles. Read through it (it's short and readable, another one of Palaeos good points) and see if you think it is a relevant for this article. I'll include it if there's no objections. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm very unhappy with this. It isn't right to destabilise 3/4 of the way through a GA review. Please could the plan be discussed first. Also, please, please could you do section shuffling and text addition/alteration in separate edits. The change from "Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to an outdated view of evolution" to "Scientists, however, tend to avoid the term, as the term itself refers to an outdated view of evolution", which reintroduces the ugly duplication of "the term", is visible in the big diff, but how many other things are not visible because the section shuffling obscures the text comparison? This is too bad. -- Stfg ( talk) 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure 3 Cetacean/Whale links are really appropriate here - we have 1 vert, 1 Tiktaalik, 3 whale, 1 bird. Undue, probably. Would someone like to remove at least 2 of the whales? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)