This is an
archive of past discussions for the period January–June 2009. 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 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I deleted the line that evolution had been proposed by ' Anaximander's theory of aquatic descent in the sixth century B.C.,'. Anaximander said that a man's embryo grew inside a fish till he hit puberty, then the fish 'burst open' and man was born. He said nothing about natural selection. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective
I am reverting once again because Anaximander made no claim that man had evolved from fish, or was descended from fish, but rather that the first man lived inside a fish in the form of an embryo until he hit puberty, at which point the fish split open. Evolutionary theory says man is descended from fish, this theory is something completely different, there is no mention of natural selection/speciation through mutation, it says man literally lived inside a fish. I suggest you open a book before reverting the edit of someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective
If you want to say they influenced him that's fine, but don't say they developed theories that were in any way evolution, the closest to that is Lucretius's natural selection and Plato's Lamarckian devolution, but it still isn't evolution at all, and shouldn't be referred to as such. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective
This section is far too long and goes into way too much detail about developments that occurred after the publication of Origin. It also duplicates information already in the section on variation and heredity. I think we need to add a lot more material summarizing the actual contents of the book. In particular we need to talk about Darwin's discussions of biogeographic, fossil, embryonic, and morphological evidence for evolution as well as his treatment of possible objections to the theory and his conclusion, and if there is going to be room for all that we need to watch the level of detail in any one topic. I propose to get rid of this section all together after merging some material into the variation and inheritance section. Does anyone object to this approach? Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
His belief in Lamarckian inheritance and his one erroneous hypothesis (gemmules), deserve a mention. But I agree that the section is way too long. CABlankenship ( talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Blogging the Origin has an interesting take on the book, tho of course not a reliable source itself. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is not stable enough or comprehensive enough for GA. There is still important material that needs to be added to the summary (as presented) section to cover the last 4 chapters of the book! I plan to do this (unless someone else beats me to it) over the course of the next week or so. As it stands now it should not pass GA. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I much prefer the phrase "religious ideas" to "creation myths" in the lead because to me "creation myths" implies Genesis. By the 1850s most educated Christians had already given up on a literal reading of Genesis (the re-emergence of biblical literalsim in America that is the root of modern creationism was an early 20th century development). The religeous concepts that were still underlaying biology (especially in Britain) were natural theology and the argument from design much more than specific creation myths. I think the text of the article now relfects this and the lead should as well. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
<ri> Thanks, Rusty, that's an improvement. I've tried to further clarify the issue, [1] by changing "The book was controversial because the transmutation of species had been the subject of political and theological debates, and it contradicted the long accepted idea that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy, which had played an important role in the development of biology." to "The topic of evolution had been highly controversial during the first half of the 19th century, since transmutation of species contradicted the long accepted idea that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy. It had been the subject of political and theological debates, with competing ideas of biology trying to explain new findings." Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The 1874 critique by Hodge was out of sequence and left unanswered, so I've cited Asa Gray's response: it's also interesting how many theologians Gray cites as reconciling science with natural theology, and also his description of Hodge's charges as gratuitous: "Dr. Hodge must have overlooked the beginning as well as the end of the volume which he judges so hardly." Having added information there, the Background sections seem to me a bit large and unfocussed, so if no-one minds I'll try to condense them significantly when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This section was removed in recent edits: "He draws attention to cross-breeding between varieties giving "vigour and fertility to the offspring", with close interbreeding having the opposite effect, in what he thinks may be a universal law. This explains features found in flowers which avoid self-fertilisation and attract insects to cross-pollinate.< ref > Darwin 1859, p. 87-101. < /ref > Not sure if it's covered elsewhere, but it's a common theme of Darwin's thought that cross-breeding has advantages, explaining sexual reproduction. This runs directly counter to the claim that Darwin inspired ideas of "racial purity", which actually come from pre-Darwinian ideas like those of Gobineau. Worth a brief mention. . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following text that was just added makes no sense as written:
I am guessing it should say that they had accepted transumtation of species or something similar, but i don't have the cited source so I am not sure. Would someone with the cited source please fix it? Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been admiring Rusty Cashman's edits of On the Origin of Species, particularly where some quotes are fixed ("fully practised and perfected" → "fully practical and perfected" and "the most beautiful" → "a most beautiful"). The original text may have been copied from Charles Darwin to this article, and to Development of Darwin's theory and Inception of Darwin's theory and Charles Darwin's views on religion.
Before I join in and help fix the other articles, it would be good if someone could clear up the reference given in Charles Darwin as the source:
Does that reference justify the quote? I imagine that it does not, so presumably the reference should be removed, and the direct links to darwin-online.org.uk should be specified instead? Johnuniq ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am more puzzled by the 2nd quote you mentioned. There is no way, even given Darwin's hand writing, that it could have been mistaken. It is "a" not "the" and there is no "most" (I forgot to take that word out) either. The difference is of course quite significant. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope that I fixed the remaining two articles so the quotations and citations are accurate. There is a remaining issue concerning how the word "chance" is used. Sometimes it appears in quotes, which might suggest that it is a quotation, or might suggest "scare quotes" (it's not really chance). Perhaps to avoid that, the word is sometimes in italics. Here is a summary:
Another issue is that I can't find a reference where Darwin uses the word "chance" in the context suggested in the articles above. Any thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, the reason for my change from 'animals' to 'lower species' was that in the context, it appears that the article presents it as fact; that humans descended from animals. Of course this is not true, since human are, and always have been classified as animals. Now, if the disputed portion was a quote that an older generation naturalist had said, that would be fine, but reading the paragraph in context, it seems like the article endorses that humans descended from animals, which is misleading. Thoughts? Artichoker talk 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
<undent> What we have at present is "An older generation of naturalists found it very hard to accept that humans descended from animals." Perhaps "An older generation of naturalists brought up in the belief that spiritual facilities were unique to humans, and that there was a complete gulf between humans and animals, found the implications of common descent very hard to accept." . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I agree shorter is better in this case. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just in case I cut something that someone thinks absolutely has to be there. Here is a subpage of this talk page with the version of that section prior to any of the GA review inspired edits: Talk:On the Origin of Species/oldcontent.
When referring to a specific chapter it is usual to use capitals for the first letter eg Chapter ii. Use of quotation marks around a block quote might make it even clearer that the text was a quotation. Aa77zz ( talk) 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As stated at #Structure above, there's a question as to whether Origin was translated into Arabic even by 1977, and the following section is of doubtful notability in relation to the book, though more significant in relation to other subjects.
Muslims were also being introduced to Darwinism, but a religious crisis as seen in the West did not arise.< ref> Quadri, M.M., MA Integration of Islam with Science (Ripon Printing Press LTD. 1967) 8< /ref> The immediate response was an overall rejection of the theory, but this was not caused so much by direct religious objections as it was by poor translations of the book.< ref >Mahmoud M. Ayoub “Creation or Evolution? The Reception of Darwinism in Modern Arab Thought” in Science and Religion in a Post Colonial World. Ed. Zainal Abidin Bagir. (Australia: ATF press. < /ref> Little debate about the theory occurred until many years later when better translations began to circulate. Its controversy rooted from the origination of the theory from the west. Science from the west is viewed as materialistic and is subject to rejection.< ref > Afghani Refutation des Materialistes 1942 tr. by A. M. Goichon, Paul Geuthner, Paris p136</ref > As time passed and better translations of the book were available the scientific side of the theory was promoted and became integrated into the Islamic religion by some scholars.
Since we're cutting information to deal with article length problems, I've moved it here. . dave souza, talk 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it this is a planned FA for the 150th anniversary of its publication that's coming up? Anything I can do to help? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to note a few things - 1. Aristotle isn't discussed that often on the page, but Darwin refers to Aristotle quite a bit (subtle and not so subtle). 2. The work is used in literature quite often. Those like George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy all have -major- allusions to the work and to the social changes that came from it. Perhaps have a small section on the cultural impact? Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference for Spencer's "survival of the fittest" (currently #46) includes a dead link to "Pioneers of Psychology [2001 Tour - School of Education & Psychology"]. http://educ.southern.edu/tour/who/pioneers/spencer.html. Retrieved on 2007-08-29.
Do we need this link? Identical references are used in this article, in the "survival of the fittest" and in the article on Herbert Spencer.
I have checked the page number in Herbert Spencer's Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444 using Google books.
Page 444 Vol 1 contains:
But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force, there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
Although the book has a date of 1864 on the title page, a footnote on the following page is dated 1874!
I suggest we include the link to the paragraph in Google books using the link at the end of the blockquote above. Aa77zz ( talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've also added Mivart's On the Genesis of Species and wanted to link to Google books - but it would appear that although Google have scanned the book several times, they do not allow full view. It seems that Google do not allow one to view a book when a facsimile version is available - even when the book is clearly in the public domain - and in this case available from Gutenberg. I've come across this before but have not seen a statement from Google stating that this is their policy. Aa77zz ( talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I didn't realize that the text was available on Wikisource - I'll link to that rather than Gutenberg. I have a question about putting in dates for links to external sites. I find them ugly and useless. I wondered whether they were required when the url is part of a full reference to a book or article. I looked in the MOS and in WP:LINKS but haven't found anything about quoting the date accessed - in fact all I found for External links section was: "For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section." Aa77zz ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This reference (currently #102) is cited 3 times in the Reception/Religious section:
I believe it would be better to use a scholarly article rather than an anonymous(?) web page but I am struggling. Before removing the citations I need to find suitable alternatives. I've introduced 2 additional citations to primary sources - but I need suitable secondary sources for "Darwin’s old Cambridge tutors Adam Sedgwick and John Stevens Henslow dismissed his ideas". I haven't Miles to check whether he/she mentions importing pamphlets - I notice this fact is mentioned in the Intro to The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 9: 1861 CUP 1994 here. Suggestions? Aa77zz ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
<undent, edit conflict while I was pulling this together> :It's unfortunate that these essays aren't signed, as they seem pretty good and the credentials of the project itself are excellent, so there should at least be editorial oversight. As they're readily available online they make a useful link for readers, and we can back them up with more scholarly sources as much as possible. Desmond & Moore pp. 487–488 covers the reaction of Sedgwick and Henslow, quoting a large part of Sedwick's letter, and for some reason I found CUL-DAR226.1.29 Printed: Sedgwick Adam 1860.05.19 Review of `Origin' (abstract) `Cambridge Chronicle': 4e-5a [3 cut cols] Image which is rather difficult to read, some of it appeared in a reference but I've forgotten which. Henslow's reaction wasn't entirely dismissive, as he defended Darwin's right to express the ideas while not going along with them, and did distance himself when it was suggested that he was a supporter of Darwin. Anyway, we should certainly leave out Henslow. I've been slogging away very slowly at a sandbox version of the Reception section, putting the emphasis on science rather than religion, it's far too large and needs some drastic pruning. My current thinking is that it could form the basis of a new article, provisional title Reception of Darwin's theory, which would provide the broader picture while Reaction to Darwin's theory continues to cover Darwin's life from November 1859 to March 1861. Will try to strip it down to essentials very shortly, for consideration. dave souza, talk 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Having made the Impact on the scientific community subsection a bit more informative, my suggestion is that it should be moved up to become the first subsection of the Reception section, and could simply be titled Science, followed by the somewhat trimmed Religious subsection. The Reception outside Great Britain subsection would be moved up as Publication outside Great Britain subsection to Publication, following on immediately after Publication and subsequent editions. If need be the French and Russian reactions could be moved into the Impact on the scientific community subsection, but that's not a big deal. So, any comments or suggestions? . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted those references in the article that do not appear to be cited. I'm pasting them here in case I've made an error or the reference will be cited in the future.
{{
citation}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn=
at position 1 (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) Retrieved on
2007-01-15I could easily have made an error in doing this. Is there a script to check whether refs are cited? I kept two refs that were not cited - Huxley 1863 - mentioned but not cited - I'll add an inline citation - and Malthus 1826 - mentioned but not cited. Malthus's essay is wikilinked and perhaps doesn't need a citation. Aa77zz ( talk) 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've revamped the introductory paragraphs to the Reception section, [10] and have removed the following sentences which seemed rather unfocussed and only vaguely related to the topic:
The point about Spencer's early influence is now covered in more detail, ref. Bowler, but I've left out the point about Social Darwinism which is rather later and too detailed for this intro. I'm thinking of mentioning in the Religious section how Spencer's ideas fitted with the Protestant work ethic and were welcomed by US industrialists, whose ethics were later given the derogatory term Social Darwinism. . . dave souza, talk 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently added an image of Asa Gray to the "outside of Great Britain" subsection of publication without realizing that Dave had used exactly the same image to replace the Hodge image in the "religious" subsection of reception. So I have replaced the image of Gray in religious reception with one of Baden Powell, which I think serves as well. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
1) Much of the content of "Reception outside Great Britain" repeats material presented in earlier sections. I wondered whether it could be deleted and the unique material added elsewhere. The reception outside GB is already discussed in the "Impact on the scientific community" (Gray, Louis Agassiz, Ernst Haeckel, Karl von Nägeli etc). The French translation by Clémence Royer is mentioned in "Publication outside Great Britain".
2) The "Modern influence" section is a strong way to finish the article - but it might be better at level 2 instead of level 3 - ie not a subsection of "Reception". Aa77zz ( talk) 23:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
While Dave's edits merging much of the material from "Reception outside of Great Britain" section into "Impact on the scientific community" worked well from a conent point of view I think they left "Impact" as an awfully long unbroken chunk of text. So I have experimented by breaking it up with sub headers. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Background" and "Publication" sections largely follow a chronological order but the "Time taken to publish" subsection is out of order. It should either be the first subsection of publication or (and this might even be my preference) the last subsection of background, but where it is now it is jarringly out of place. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that with the new wording it is clear that this is a comment on the entire pre-publication period rather than a piece of the chronological narrative, so it is probably Ok now. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 06:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I realize that several editors/reviewers have just put a lot of effort into getting this article through the GA review process, but given the goal of having this article listed as FA in time to be featured on the main page on Nov. 24th for the 150th anniversary of first publication I am hoping we can take it to FAC in a couple of weeks (probably first week in June). Therefore, if anyone can think of any weaknesses that ought to be addressed before FAC, it would be nice to know about them in the next couple of weeks. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a brief mention of the variorum, concordance and the Darwin Industry in general into the "modern influence" section where I think it works well. I just got ahold of the Annotated Origin (Darwin, Costa 2009). It is quite interesting and I suspect it will inspire a few tweaks to the article after I have had a little more time to peruse it. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
"In January 1871 George Jackson Mivart's On the Genesis of Species listed detailed arguments against natural selection, and claimed it included false metaphysics.[54] Darwin took this personally, because Mivart had been a friend in his younger days. He made revisions to the sixth edition of the Origin, using the word "evolution" for the first time[55] and adding a new chapter VII, Miscellaneous objections, to refute Mivart.[56]"
I am somewhat troubled by the discussion of the word 'Creator' in Publications and subsequent editions. If it is necessary to raise the unanswerable question as to what CD meant by it, then at least the scene should be set with some foundations as to CD's beliefs at the time. We have some quotes from the man himself on this question. Both Browne and Desmond & Moore give the same quotes:
The Aveling quote comes from a visit to Down House by Aveling and Ludwig Büchner. They were renowned (or notorious) atheists, at the time attending the Freethinkers Congress in London. The meeting with CD also included Frank Darwin and Brodie Innes, the local vicar, so the content of the discussion is well attested. (Desmond & Moore p656–658 and Browne CD: the power of place p484–485) Section VII on p431 of Browne deals with CD's religious views more generally, and she notes "In [his] autobiography Darwin expressed startlingly harsh views on Christianity".
The point of all this is that it gives a sound foundation to the general conclusion that CD was an agnostic as he wrote the Origin at about 50 years of age, and that discussion as to what he meant by Creator &c. should start from that point. (I see no grounds at all for James Moore's interpretation, and it's hardly a refereed source -- but that's incidental) Surely what CD himself said takes precedence over anyone else's opinion?
The question is whether we should expand the section, and include some of the above to give readers a fair chance, or leave it out entirely. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 15:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There is another factor here. Darwin's opinions changed over time. He didn't jump from conventional Christianity all the way to agnosticism in a single step. What matters for the purpose of this article is his state of mind in the late 1850s when he was working on the book, not later in his life (ie the meeting with the free thinking philosophers). Here is what (Quammen 2006 p. 119) has to say on the matter:
Had an impersonal first cause of some sort, a Supreme Being in the fuzziest sense, given rise to the universe and set it in motion according to the mechanics of those fixed laws? Maybe. For much of his adult life, including the period when he wrote the Origin of Species, thats what Darwin felt inclined to believe. Later "with many fluctuations", he grew gradually more doubtful.
This seems consistent with what he wrote in Origin and with the statements in this article. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In my FAC comment I noted that the Literary style section could be fleshed out further; let me expand on that comment. The current section is mainly focused on documenting opinions of the book's readability, which is fine but it would be good to also add greater analysis of its literary style. For example, questions like:
Now, I don't know if and how such information can be properly sourced (we certainly don't want OR!), but given the rich literature in the area I would guess that someone has written about it. This chapter and its references may be relevant. Should be worth looking into, even if it cannot be addressed immediately (that is the reason I am posting the comment here). PS: my comment applies broadly to the whole Structure and style section and not only the subsection.
Aside Is there any data of how many reprints OtOoS has been through in the last 150 years and how many copies it has sold ? Abecedare ( talk) 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the article could be clearer on the importance of natural selection and the reasons why the concept of evolution was accepted while there remained reluctance and ambivalence over accepting this key mechanism of evolution. Also, in the section "Natural selection" in the article, there are mixed in the discussion the issue of the age of the Earth. I feel the brilliance and originality of Darwin's thinking is somewhat obscured. What interests me is that he conceived of natural selection through examining empirical data, understanding the work of animal breeders, his own observations, etc. and put it forth years before gene theory and other supportive evidence appeared. — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe this section is too general and does not maintain the focus on the book. It refers to Darwin's ideas in general and even to some of his other writings. This would be appropriate in a more general article on the impact of Darwin's ideas. This article is about a specific book, and I think any discussion of impact should be restricted to effects of this specific book. Many of the references in this section are not to discussions of the impact of this specific book but to the ideas of Darwin in total. The article focus has remained so marvelously and refreshingly focused on the book itself that it is jarring to come across this section that leaps out of that framework to rehash, from my point of view, general religious/philosophical issues that surely are discussed in many other articles. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
<ec, ri> Rusty's idea looks promising to me, perhaps we could avoid the detail of "and a conservative group of jesuits who were influential in Rome around 1900," covering it by "some conservative Roman Catholic writers and groups". Bowler 2003 pp. 322–324 also covers the endorsement of purposeful evolution by British Anglican and Free Churches, and views of modernists and fundamentalists in the US. I'd like to rethink the paragraph to cover all these issues concisely in very broad terms without giving as much detail as at present. Think that's a useful way forward? Will be a bit tied up by other things until tomorrow afternoon. Rather agree with the points Mattisse makes, the Powell issue was aimed at showing the range of opinions, but we've already got Kingsley. Think it's still worth mentioning his statement about Origin? The above stands about the Catholic part, the fundamentalist part is mentioned by Bowler and goes against the common perception that fundamentalists were anti-evolutionists from the outset, but using Bowler as a source we can probably cover it more concisely and avoid giving the false impression suggested above. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the caption to Image:Charles Darwin - Pigeon skulls.png to "Darwin researched how the skulls of different pigeon breeds varied, as shown in his Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication of 1868." to focus attention on his research at the time the section is dealing with. While the scan may be from a later edition, the same image appears in the 1868 first edition. . dave souza, talk 15:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
External links could be reduced to:
There seems no need for sites which duplicate parts well covered by these. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 11:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a most useful section. I suggest the inclusion of several more reviews from The complete works of Charles Darwin on-line, on grounds of their influence & notability.
Gray, Asa 1860. Review of Darwin's theory on the origin of species by means of natural selection. American Journal of Science and Arts (Ser. 2) 29 (March): 153-184.
Gray, Asa 1861. A free examination of Darwin's treatise on the Origin of Species, and of its American reviewers. Reprinted from the Atlantic monthly for July, August, and October, 1860. London: Trübner & Co., Boston: Ticknor and Fields. (This is the pamphlet sponsored by Darwin)
Huxley T.H. Review in the Times, Dec 26 1859. His first review of the Origin, which elicited a wonderful letter from Darwin, 28th Dec 1859.
The source notes that there are many more reviews, most not yet available on-line. We might one day find we had material for a complete article on this topic. I would also recommend switching all entries in this section to The complete works of Charles Darwin on-line instead of Victorianweb. It makes sense to concentrate on the most complete source, and Vicweb is prone to small type size. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 11:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just scrolling through the "On this day..."s at the top of the page, and it's funny, and oddly appropriate, that
Lucy was discovered on November 24, 1974, 125 115 years, to the date, after the publication of the Origin
[14]. I have no idea how to make that help the article, but perhaps it's something for the main page again on November 24. This also means that November 24 will be the 25 35th anniversary of the discovery of Lucy. Is there anything planned for that article? Cheers,
Edhubbard (
talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period January–June 2009. 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 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I deleted the line that evolution had been proposed by ' Anaximander's theory of aquatic descent in the sixth century B.C.,'. Anaximander said that a man's embryo grew inside a fish till he hit puberty, then the fish 'burst open' and man was born. He said nothing about natural selection. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective
I am reverting once again because Anaximander made no claim that man had evolved from fish, or was descended from fish, but rather that the first man lived inside a fish in the form of an embryo until he hit puberty, at which point the fish split open. Evolutionary theory says man is descended from fish, this theory is something completely different, there is no mention of natural selection/speciation through mutation, it says man literally lived inside a fish. I suggest you open a book before reverting the edit of someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective
If you want to say they influenced him that's fine, but don't say they developed theories that were in any way evolution, the closest to that is Lucretius's natural selection and Plato's Lamarckian devolution, but it still isn't evolution at all, and shouldn't be referred to as such. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective
This section is far too long and goes into way too much detail about developments that occurred after the publication of Origin. It also duplicates information already in the section on variation and heredity. I think we need to add a lot more material summarizing the actual contents of the book. In particular we need to talk about Darwin's discussions of biogeographic, fossil, embryonic, and morphological evidence for evolution as well as his treatment of possible objections to the theory and his conclusion, and if there is going to be room for all that we need to watch the level of detail in any one topic. I propose to get rid of this section all together after merging some material into the variation and inheritance section. Does anyone object to this approach? Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
His belief in Lamarckian inheritance and his one erroneous hypothesis (gemmules), deserve a mention. But I agree that the section is way too long. CABlankenship ( talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Blogging the Origin has an interesting take on the book, tho of course not a reliable source itself. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is not stable enough or comprehensive enough for GA. There is still important material that needs to be added to the summary (as presented) section to cover the last 4 chapters of the book! I plan to do this (unless someone else beats me to it) over the course of the next week or so. As it stands now it should not pass GA. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I much prefer the phrase "religious ideas" to "creation myths" in the lead because to me "creation myths" implies Genesis. By the 1850s most educated Christians had already given up on a literal reading of Genesis (the re-emergence of biblical literalsim in America that is the root of modern creationism was an early 20th century development). The religeous concepts that were still underlaying biology (especially in Britain) were natural theology and the argument from design much more than specific creation myths. I think the text of the article now relfects this and the lead should as well. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
<ri> Thanks, Rusty, that's an improvement. I've tried to further clarify the issue, [1] by changing "The book was controversial because the transmutation of species had been the subject of political and theological debates, and it contradicted the long accepted idea that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy, which had played an important role in the development of biology." to "The topic of evolution had been highly controversial during the first half of the 19th century, since transmutation of species contradicted the long accepted idea that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy. It had been the subject of political and theological debates, with competing ideas of biology trying to explain new findings." Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The 1874 critique by Hodge was out of sequence and left unanswered, so I've cited Asa Gray's response: it's also interesting how many theologians Gray cites as reconciling science with natural theology, and also his description of Hodge's charges as gratuitous: "Dr. Hodge must have overlooked the beginning as well as the end of the volume which he judges so hardly." Having added information there, the Background sections seem to me a bit large and unfocussed, so if no-one minds I'll try to condense them significantly when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This section was removed in recent edits: "He draws attention to cross-breeding between varieties giving "vigour and fertility to the offspring", with close interbreeding having the opposite effect, in what he thinks may be a universal law. This explains features found in flowers which avoid self-fertilisation and attract insects to cross-pollinate.< ref > Darwin 1859, p. 87-101. < /ref > Not sure if it's covered elsewhere, but it's a common theme of Darwin's thought that cross-breeding has advantages, explaining sexual reproduction. This runs directly counter to the claim that Darwin inspired ideas of "racial purity", which actually come from pre-Darwinian ideas like those of Gobineau. Worth a brief mention. . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following text that was just added makes no sense as written:
I am guessing it should say that they had accepted transumtation of species or something similar, but i don't have the cited source so I am not sure. Would someone with the cited source please fix it? Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been admiring Rusty Cashman's edits of On the Origin of Species, particularly where some quotes are fixed ("fully practised and perfected" → "fully practical and perfected" and "the most beautiful" → "a most beautiful"). The original text may have been copied from Charles Darwin to this article, and to Development of Darwin's theory and Inception of Darwin's theory and Charles Darwin's views on religion.
Before I join in and help fix the other articles, it would be good if someone could clear up the reference given in Charles Darwin as the source:
Does that reference justify the quote? I imagine that it does not, so presumably the reference should be removed, and the direct links to darwin-online.org.uk should be specified instead? Johnuniq ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am more puzzled by the 2nd quote you mentioned. There is no way, even given Darwin's hand writing, that it could have been mistaken. It is "a" not "the" and there is no "most" (I forgot to take that word out) either. The difference is of course quite significant. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope that I fixed the remaining two articles so the quotations and citations are accurate. There is a remaining issue concerning how the word "chance" is used. Sometimes it appears in quotes, which might suggest that it is a quotation, or might suggest "scare quotes" (it's not really chance). Perhaps to avoid that, the word is sometimes in italics. Here is a summary:
Another issue is that I can't find a reference where Darwin uses the word "chance" in the context suggested in the articles above. Any thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, the reason for my change from 'animals' to 'lower species' was that in the context, it appears that the article presents it as fact; that humans descended from animals. Of course this is not true, since human are, and always have been classified as animals. Now, if the disputed portion was a quote that an older generation naturalist had said, that would be fine, but reading the paragraph in context, it seems like the article endorses that humans descended from animals, which is misleading. Thoughts? Artichoker talk 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
<undent> What we have at present is "An older generation of naturalists found it very hard to accept that humans descended from animals." Perhaps "An older generation of naturalists brought up in the belief that spiritual facilities were unique to humans, and that there was a complete gulf between humans and animals, found the implications of common descent very hard to accept." . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I agree shorter is better in this case. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just in case I cut something that someone thinks absolutely has to be there. Here is a subpage of this talk page with the version of that section prior to any of the GA review inspired edits: Talk:On the Origin of Species/oldcontent.
When referring to a specific chapter it is usual to use capitals for the first letter eg Chapter ii. Use of quotation marks around a block quote might make it even clearer that the text was a quotation. Aa77zz ( talk) 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As stated at #Structure above, there's a question as to whether Origin was translated into Arabic even by 1977, and the following section is of doubtful notability in relation to the book, though more significant in relation to other subjects.
Muslims were also being introduced to Darwinism, but a religious crisis as seen in the West did not arise.< ref> Quadri, M.M., MA Integration of Islam with Science (Ripon Printing Press LTD. 1967) 8< /ref> The immediate response was an overall rejection of the theory, but this was not caused so much by direct religious objections as it was by poor translations of the book.< ref >Mahmoud M. Ayoub “Creation or Evolution? The Reception of Darwinism in Modern Arab Thought” in Science and Religion in a Post Colonial World. Ed. Zainal Abidin Bagir. (Australia: ATF press. < /ref> Little debate about the theory occurred until many years later when better translations began to circulate. Its controversy rooted from the origination of the theory from the west. Science from the west is viewed as materialistic and is subject to rejection.< ref > Afghani Refutation des Materialistes 1942 tr. by A. M. Goichon, Paul Geuthner, Paris p136</ref > As time passed and better translations of the book were available the scientific side of the theory was promoted and became integrated into the Islamic religion by some scholars.
Since we're cutting information to deal with article length problems, I've moved it here. . dave souza, talk 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it this is a planned FA for the 150th anniversary of its publication that's coming up? Anything I can do to help? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to note a few things - 1. Aristotle isn't discussed that often on the page, but Darwin refers to Aristotle quite a bit (subtle and not so subtle). 2. The work is used in literature quite often. Those like George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy all have -major- allusions to the work and to the social changes that came from it. Perhaps have a small section on the cultural impact? Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The reference for Spencer's "survival of the fittest" (currently #46) includes a dead link to "Pioneers of Psychology [2001 Tour - School of Education & Psychology"]. http://educ.southern.edu/tour/who/pioneers/spencer.html. Retrieved on 2007-08-29.
Do we need this link? Identical references are used in this article, in the "survival of the fittest" and in the article on Herbert Spencer.
I have checked the page number in Herbert Spencer's Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444 using Google books.
Page 444 Vol 1 contains:
But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force, there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
Although the book has a date of 1864 on the title page, a footnote on the following page is dated 1874!
I suggest we include the link to the paragraph in Google books using the link at the end of the blockquote above. Aa77zz ( talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've also added Mivart's On the Genesis of Species and wanted to link to Google books - but it would appear that although Google have scanned the book several times, they do not allow full view. It seems that Google do not allow one to view a book when a facsimile version is available - even when the book is clearly in the public domain - and in this case available from Gutenberg. I've come across this before but have not seen a statement from Google stating that this is their policy. Aa77zz ( talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I didn't realize that the text was available on Wikisource - I'll link to that rather than Gutenberg. I have a question about putting in dates for links to external sites. I find them ugly and useless. I wondered whether they were required when the url is part of a full reference to a book or article. I looked in the MOS and in WP:LINKS but haven't found anything about quoting the date accessed - in fact all I found for External links section was: "For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section." Aa77zz ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This reference (currently #102) is cited 3 times in the Reception/Religious section:
I believe it would be better to use a scholarly article rather than an anonymous(?) web page but I am struggling. Before removing the citations I need to find suitable alternatives. I've introduced 2 additional citations to primary sources - but I need suitable secondary sources for "Darwin’s old Cambridge tutors Adam Sedgwick and John Stevens Henslow dismissed his ideas". I haven't Miles to check whether he/she mentions importing pamphlets - I notice this fact is mentioned in the Intro to The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 9: 1861 CUP 1994 here. Suggestions? Aa77zz ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
<undent, edit conflict while I was pulling this together> :It's unfortunate that these essays aren't signed, as they seem pretty good and the credentials of the project itself are excellent, so there should at least be editorial oversight. As they're readily available online they make a useful link for readers, and we can back them up with more scholarly sources as much as possible. Desmond & Moore pp. 487–488 covers the reaction of Sedgwick and Henslow, quoting a large part of Sedwick's letter, and for some reason I found CUL-DAR226.1.29 Printed: Sedgwick Adam 1860.05.19 Review of `Origin' (abstract) `Cambridge Chronicle': 4e-5a [3 cut cols] Image which is rather difficult to read, some of it appeared in a reference but I've forgotten which. Henslow's reaction wasn't entirely dismissive, as he defended Darwin's right to express the ideas while not going along with them, and did distance himself when it was suggested that he was a supporter of Darwin. Anyway, we should certainly leave out Henslow. I've been slogging away very slowly at a sandbox version of the Reception section, putting the emphasis on science rather than religion, it's far too large and needs some drastic pruning. My current thinking is that it could form the basis of a new article, provisional title Reception of Darwin's theory, which would provide the broader picture while Reaction to Darwin's theory continues to cover Darwin's life from November 1859 to March 1861. Will try to strip it down to essentials very shortly, for consideration. dave souza, talk 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Having made the Impact on the scientific community subsection a bit more informative, my suggestion is that it should be moved up to become the first subsection of the Reception section, and could simply be titled Science, followed by the somewhat trimmed Religious subsection. The Reception outside Great Britain subsection would be moved up as Publication outside Great Britain subsection to Publication, following on immediately after Publication and subsequent editions. If need be the French and Russian reactions could be moved into the Impact on the scientific community subsection, but that's not a big deal. So, any comments or suggestions? . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted those references in the article that do not appear to be cited. I'm pasting them here in case I've made an error or the reference will be cited in the future.
{{
citation}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |isbn=
at position 1 (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) Retrieved on
2007-01-15I could easily have made an error in doing this. Is there a script to check whether refs are cited? I kept two refs that were not cited - Huxley 1863 - mentioned but not cited - I'll add an inline citation - and Malthus 1826 - mentioned but not cited. Malthus's essay is wikilinked and perhaps doesn't need a citation. Aa77zz ( talk) 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've revamped the introductory paragraphs to the Reception section, [10] and have removed the following sentences which seemed rather unfocussed and only vaguely related to the topic:
The point about Spencer's early influence is now covered in more detail, ref. Bowler, but I've left out the point about Social Darwinism which is rather later and too detailed for this intro. I'm thinking of mentioning in the Religious section how Spencer's ideas fitted with the Protestant work ethic and were welcomed by US industrialists, whose ethics were later given the derogatory term Social Darwinism. . . dave souza, talk 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently added an image of Asa Gray to the "outside of Great Britain" subsection of publication without realizing that Dave had used exactly the same image to replace the Hodge image in the "religious" subsection of reception. So I have replaced the image of Gray in religious reception with one of Baden Powell, which I think serves as well. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
1) Much of the content of "Reception outside Great Britain" repeats material presented in earlier sections. I wondered whether it could be deleted and the unique material added elsewhere. The reception outside GB is already discussed in the "Impact on the scientific community" (Gray, Louis Agassiz, Ernst Haeckel, Karl von Nägeli etc). The French translation by Clémence Royer is mentioned in "Publication outside Great Britain".
2) The "Modern influence" section is a strong way to finish the article - but it might be better at level 2 instead of level 3 - ie not a subsection of "Reception". Aa77zz ( talk) 23:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
While Dave's edits merging much of the material from "Reception outside of Great Britain" section into "Impact on the scientific community" worked well from a conent point of view I think they left "Impact" as an awfully long unbroken chunk of text. So I have experimented by breaking it up with sub headers. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Background" and "Publication" sections largely follow a chronological order but the "Time taken to publish" subsection is out of order. It should either be the first subsection of publication or (and this might even be my preference) the last subsection of background, but where it is now it is jarringly out of place. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that with the new wording it is clear that this is a comment on the entire pre-publication period rather than a piece of the chronological narrative, so it is probably Ok now. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 06:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I realize that several editors/reviewers have just put a lot of effort into getting this article through the GA review process, but given the goal of having this article listed as FA in time to be featured on the main page on Nov. 24th for the 150th anniversary of first publication I am hoping we can take it to FAC in a couple of weeks (probably first week in June). Therefore, if anyone can think of any weaknesses that ought to be addressed before FAC, it would be nice to know about them in the next couple of weeks. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a brief mention of the variorum, concordance and the Darwin Industry in general into the "modern influence" section where I think it works well. I just got ahold of the Annotated Origin (Darwin, Costa 2009). It is quite interesting and I suspect it will inspire a few tweaks to the article after I have had a little more time to peruse it. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
"In January 1871 George Jackson Mivart's On the Genesis of Species listed detailed arguments against natural selection, and claimed it included false metaphysics.[54] Darwin took this personally, because Mivart had been a friend in his younger days. He made revisions to the sixth edition of the Origin, using the word "evolution" for the first time[55] and adding a new chapter VII, Miscellaneous objections, to refute Mivart.[56]"
I am somewhat troubled by the discussion of the word 'Creator' in Publications and subsequent editions. If it is necessary to raise the unanswerable question as to what CD meant by it, then at least the scene should be set with some foundations as to CD's beliefs at the time. We have some quotes from the man himself on this question. Both Browne and Desmond & Moore give the same quotes:
The Aveling quote comes from a visit to Down House by Aveling and Ludwig Büchner. They were renowned (or notorious) atheists, at the time attending the Freethinkers Congress in London. The meeting with CD also included Frank Darwin and Brodie Innes, the local vicar, so the content of the discussion is well attested. (Desmond & Moore p656–658 and Browne CD: the power of place p484–485) Section VII on p431 of Browne deals with CD's religious views more generally, and she notes "In [his] autobiography Darwin expressed startlingly harsh views on Christianity".
The point of all this is that it gives a sound foundation to the general conclusion that CD was an agnostic as he wrote the Origin at about 50 years of age, and that discussion as to what he meant by Creator &c. should start from that point. (I see no grounds at all for James Moore's interpretation, and it's hardly a refereed source -- but that's incidental) Surely what CD himself said takes precedence over anyone else's opinion?
The question is whether we should expand the section, and include some of the above to give readers a fair chance, or leave it out entirely. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 15:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There is another factor here. Darwin's opinions changed over time. He didn't jump from conventional Christianity all the way to agnosticism in a single step. What matters for the purpose of this article is his state of mind in the late 1850s when he was working on the book, not later in his life (ie the meeting with the free thinking philosophers). Here is what (Quammen 2006 p. 119) has to say on the matter:
Had an impersonal first cause of some sort, a Supreme Being in the fuzziest sense, given rise to the universe and set it in motion according to the mechanics of those fixed laws? Maybe. For much of his adult life, including the period when he wrote the Origin of Species, thats what Darwin felt inclined to believe. Later "with many fluctuations", he grew gradually more doubtful.
This seems consistent with what he wrote in Origin and with the statements in this article. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In my FAC comment I noted that the Literary style section could be fleshed out further; let me expand on that comment. The current section is mainly focused on documenting opinions of the book's readability, which is fine but it would be good to also add greater analysis of its literary style. For example, questions like:
Now, I don't know if and how such information can be properly sourced (we certainly don't want OR!), but given the rich literature in the area I would guess that someone has written about it. This chapter and its references may be relevant. Should be worth looking into, even if it cannot be addressed immediately (that is the reason I am posting the comment here). PS: my comment applies broadly to the whole Structure and style section and not only the subsection.
Aside Is there any data of how many reprints OtOoS has been through in the last 150 years and how many copies it has sold ? Abecedare ( talk) 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the article could be clearer on the importance of natural selection and the reasons why the concept of evolution was accepted while there remained reluctance and ambivalence over accepting this key mechanism of evolution. Also, in the section "Natural selection" in the article, there are mixed in the discussion the issue of the age of the Earth. I feel the brilliance and originality of Darwin's thinking is somewhat obscured. What interests me is that he conceived of natural selection through examining empirical data, understanding the work of animal breeders, his own observations, etc. and put it forth years before gene theory and other supportive evidence appeared. — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe this section is too general and does not maintain the focus on the book. It refers to Darwin's ideas in general and even to some of his other writings. This would be appropriate in a more general article on the impact of Darwin's ideas. This article is about a specific book, and I think any discussion of impact should be restricted to effects of this specific book. Many of the references in this section are not to discussions of the impact of this specific book but to the ideas of Darwin in total. The article focus has remained so marvelously and refreshingly focused on the book itself that it is jarring to come across this section that leaps out of that framework to rehash, from my point of view, general religious/philosophical issues that surely are discussed in many other articles. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
<ec, ri> Rusty's idea looks promising to me, perhaps we could avoid the detail of "and a conservative group of jesuits who were influential in Rome around 1900," covering it by "some conservative Roman Catholic writers and groups". Bowler 2003 pp. 322–324 also covers the endorsement of purposeful evolution by British Anglican and Free Churches, and views of modernists and fundamentalists in the US. I'd like to rethink the paragraph to cover all these issues concisely in very broad terms without giving as much detail as at present. Think that's a useful way forward? Will be a bit tied up by other things until tomorrow afternoon. Rather agree with the points Mattisse makes, the Powell issue was aimed at showing the range of opinions, but we've already got Kingsley. Think it's still worth mentioning his statement about Origin? The above stands about the Catholic part, the fundamentalist part is mentioned by Bowler and goes against the common perception that fundamentalists were anti-evolutionists from the outset, but using Bowler as a source we can probably cover it more concisely and avoid giving the false impression suggested above. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the caption to Image:Charles Darwin - Pigeon skulls.png to "Darwin researched how the skulls of different pigeon breeds varied, as shown in his Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication of 1868." to focus attention on his research at the time the section is dealing with. While the scan may be from a later edition, the same image appears in the 1868 first edition. . dave souza, talk 15:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
External links could be reduced to:
There seems no need for sites which duplicate parts well covered by these. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 11:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a most useful section. I suggest the inclusion of several more reviews from The complete works of Charles Darwin on-line, on grounds of their influence & notability.
Gray, Asa 1860. Review of Darwin's theory on the origin of species by means of natural selection. American Journal of Science and Arts (Ser. 2) 29 (March): 153-184.
Gray, Asa 1861. A free examination of Darwin's treatise on the Origin of Species, and of its American reviewers. Reprinted from the Atlantic monthly for July, August, and October, 1860. London: Trübner & Co., Boston: Ticknor and Fields. (This is the pamphlet sponsored by Darwin)
Huxley T.H. Review in the Times, Dec 26 1859. His first review of the Origin, which elicited a wonderful letter from Darwin, 28th Dec 1859.
The source notes that there are many more reviews, most not yet available on-line. We might one day find we had material for a complete article on this topic. I would also recommend switching all entries in this section to The complete works of Charles Darwin on-line instead of Victorianweb. It makes sense to concentrate on the most complete source, and Vicweb is prone to small type size. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 11:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just scrolling through the "On this day..."s at the top of the page, and it's funny, and oddly appropriate, that
Lucy was discovered on November 24, 1974, 125 115 years, to the date, after the publication of the Origin
[14]. I have no idea how to make that help the article, but perhaps it's something for the main page again on November 24. This also means that November 24 will be the 25 35th anniversary of the discovery of Lucy. Is there anything planned for that article? Cheers,
Edhubbard (
talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)