The article was promoted 17:56, 29 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through extensive peer review, and modification in the course of obtaining GA status. We believe it is now ready for careful consideration of FA status. Filll ( talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Let's see... For basics, the isbn format breaks ISBN linking, external links should NEVER be formatted without text (there's a reason all usual Wikipedia web cites formats put the title there, people!), and if you're going to give full names in references, you might as well do the same in "further reading". Circeus ( talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) It might be best to ask here, which sections do you think should be put into prose and why? Which bulleted sections would be improved by being put into prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Referencing has been dramatically increased; despite my better judgment and general agreement with Filll on the need in an Introductory article which links to the primary document that is heavily referenced. None-the-less, there are now nearly 50 sources referenced. May we now consider that concern resolved? I am in strong disagreement with the POV claim. Perhaps you could expand upon that concern on the discussion page. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)-- Random Replicator ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent)Citations and referencing has been dramatically increased which was in direct opposition to our mandate to increase readability. I did this to address this specific oppose. The number of references are approaching 70; nearly double the number when you opposed. A hope you will be responding to my efforts as time is surely running out.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Removed "The Tree" that has been added and removed several times in regards to the concern over clutter. It has been very difficult to balance the pictures; again because of my experience with textbooks, with the more "stark" approach of Wikipedia. Hope the removal served to improve the general appearance. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) There are now nearly 70 references in an effort to address your specific concern. I am requesting that you specifically respond to these revision in citation numbers in order for me to determine if you are still in opposition and if possible, perhaps you could be more specific. Thanks for your input. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Response "The theory of evolution serves as the foundation for much of the research conducted in biology, including molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy." Toned it down just a tad --- this is not over-blown; hopefully it still emphasizes the importance of evolutionary theory in biology.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments
(unindent) "elevate" That is why they only let me watch and not actually type anything! That line has been revised per your suggestion. They did let me add the title "Biology" to the Campbell / Reese Text. Thanks-- Random Replicator ( talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Ok, that's the correct statement that Darwin accepted as fact the idea that heritable traits were a product of use and disuse reintroduced with three new references, and the paragraph revised to make the point clearer. .. dave souza, talk 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(undent) I noticed that you checked off your concerns on Talk, both the factual concern and concern that it is not well written; yet the oppose remains. Were there other concerns or does this still stand on the more general opinion of it being short of FA standard?-- Random Replicator ( talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) Wikipedia needs to establish credibility by citing excellent reliable sources, agreed. In our case; however, the entry was designed to increase access to a complex concept via a transition article. Everything in here is general knowledge. Our approach has been to basically use citations as a tool to open doors to even more general "laymen" type web resources. For example: [5] [6] [7] I didn't mean to suggest that they have to be web accessable; I'm just saying for our audience in an Introductory Article there is merit to doing so if it opens new resources for general readers. Face it, they are not going to go locate the Journal of Evolutionary Biology; however a cool web cite like National Geographic or PBS may be meaningful. The entire Evolution page is sourced from high level journals. It bespeaks of credibility; but it offers nothing to the general reader. What I see as a strength of our entry; at least by some, is seen as a weakness. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) How do you think it looks now? I think that having the evolution template in the white space next to the TOC and under the dinosaur image works fine. (By the way, I think there were people on the talk page discussing the images, too - I've lost track now.) Awadewit | talk 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Some specific issues with just the first two paragraphs. There are plenty more:
The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.
Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.
Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.
Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."
(Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. " This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.
He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."
It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.
This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.
This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.
What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.
No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.
--- section moved to discussion page ----
This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.
Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."
Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.
There are just too many problems with the article. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):
Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.
"From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool."
The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.
Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph:
"A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population."
It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool."
The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler:
"Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations."
So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this.
Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.
This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
*Object I note the discussion above regarding creationism and my object is wholly founded in this area. Evolution is a theory which is accepted by the vast majority of science, and indeed probably the vast majority of humanity. However, unlike flat-earthers the controversy and opposition to it is (the important thing for a WP Featured Article) notable. I think that the treatment of the opposition need (in fact should) not be over-egged in an "Introduction" article, but it shouldn't be omitted altogether as it currently effectively is. In a similar vein, I'd expect an Introduction to Global Warming article to include reference to the fact that this is not an uncontroversial topic and give a clear marker for those interested in reading more about the arguments. This is a nomination for a Featured Article. Such articles must espouse our highest possible standards, one of which is comprehensiveness. I think this is easily fixed, in probably no more than two or three sentences, perhaps, to keep things on-topic and NPOV, focussing on key arguments used by opponents of the theory that aren't used by critics who support the theory. I suggest the article puts forward apparent shortcomings in evolutionary theory, rather than a discursus explaining creationism or any other ism. Perhaps that's not the best way to treat it, but it can't just be relegated to a {{for}} or {{main}} tag. And while it is, I need to object to an excellent article. If fixed, I'd need to review the article in more depth but it does look like an otherwise FA quality article at first reading. --
Dweller (
talk)
11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
OK, let's examine whethere the following words appear at all in the body text of the article:
As I've said, it's not enough to dismiss notable opposition with just a main tag, and the one usage of "objection" is in a Summary section. Well, isn't a Summary usually, erm, a summary of what's been discussed?
What I'm looking for is a brief, honest note in an appropriate place in the article to the fact that there is notable opposition to evolution. Probably two or three sentences. Possibly one if well written and in an appropriate place. (The Global warming FA does with a wikilinked half a sentence in its Lead (!), with a main tag lower down, under an appropriate heading. Not sure about that, as Lead usually summarises the article, but you get my point.) I'm not looking for a treatise on Creationism; it would be inappropriate here.
Incidentally, the one relevant main tag you have is in an inappropriate place, as I don't believe that Creation-evolution controversy is really about "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution", but rather a perspective on the fundamentals of the theory, rather than how it works ("mechanics"). -- Dweller ( talk) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
cross posting from User talk:Random Replicator
Gosh, what a can of worms for what I thought would be fairly straightforward to address.
I don't really mind how my objection would/could be addressed (I suggested a methodology, but if it doesn't work, that's fine), but I would expect that the introduction article to any scientific theory that had notable opposition (and boy is it notable) should at least mention the opposition, or it is dishonest.
Wikipedia's role is not to decide what is "Truth" or "Right" or "Good for 14 year olds", but to be a mirror of the world we live in. And there is opposition to this theory, even if scientists the world over regard that as barmy.
The controversy over evolution affects school curricula the world over. It fills our newspapers. It's the subject of countless TV documentaries. And it's obviously something that both scientists and clerics spend a lot of time fruitlessly trying to win unwinnable arguments about.
So any article seeking to fulfil the criterion of comprehensiveness needs to mention the controversy.
I'm surprised people disagree with this.
It's hard for me to debate on the talk page without stoking up the temperature - there already seem to be quite a few editors there with hot tempers and I'm not looking for controversy, just to see an article reach our highest values before it passes FA.
If you wanted, we could work in a sandbox on some wording, but I think from the looks of the article talk page that we're not ready to do that yet.
-- Dweller ( talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not to be a bearer of bad news, but as a result of your agitation, the article was just scrubbed and the discussion of the controversy was reduced even further and relegated to one or two links. So, sometimes there is a law of unintended consequences. I would have favored the material at least being mentioned and integrated in, but because of the trouble you caused, others lost patience. Sad.-- Filll ( talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The caption on the homologous structures: "Homologous structures. Note how the same basic structure appears repeatedly in different types of forelimbs of different species." The image shows the typical vertebrate forelimbs (I think, just glanced) above three different birds. Wings on birds aren't homologous so much as they're the same structure. They're all bird wings. The wings of bats and and arms of human beings, the example given in the Wikipedia article on homology are, indeed, homologous structures, more distantly the wings of birds are homologous with the wings of bats and arms of human beings, as are the forelimbs of all vertebrates. The wings of insects and of birds are analagous structures. But we don't usually say that the wings of one species of butterfly are homologous with the wings of another species. This caption should be deleted or the pictures of the birds should be removed from it. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.
The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.
Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.
The problem sentence, though: "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."
Actually it's the process by why all life accumulates changes over generations (leading to differences, through time, but something along the first part might suffice). All life changes over generations, but all life doesn't evolve due to changing over generations. Again, the people alive today, aren't the same as the folks alive 150 years ago, but human beings haven't evolved in 150 years.
Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."
Still like diversity better because it's a buzzword in the press.
This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.
He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."
How about,
"In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped later scientists to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."
This makes it unnecessary to explain more about Mendel or to timeline Mendel and early 20th century genetics in the first paragraph while still keeping it strictly accurate, also deals specifically with my issue about the next sentence on mechanisms of inheritance, again while being more accurate, not adding too much depth for the introduction and honoring the timeline.
It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.
"This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"
This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.
"The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."
This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.
(Sentence is no longer there) "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."
What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.
Is this the correct order?
I'd like to see this tied to a specific source. I took a seminar with one of the world's leading scientists on the issue of species, he wrote one of the most cited papers on the topic. I asked him during the seminar if scientists today understood speciation real well. I asked him because I thought this statement above was true. He said, "How can we be understand speciation if don't understand species?" I'm uneasy about the sentence, but maybe scientists do think they understand species really well 5 years later. I think it needs a reference, also, because it's so definitive.
Unequivocally and simply, yes.
No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.
--- section moved to discussion page ----
This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.
Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."
Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.
There are just too many problems with the article. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):
This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation."
The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.
The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.
Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in t
he same paragraph:
"A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population."It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool."
The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler:
"Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations."
So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this.
Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.
This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --
Amaltheus (
talk)
04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Support: Wassupwestcoast, Ben Tillman, DrKiernan, Kaldari, dave souza, Awadewit, Giano, Professor marginalia, Dweller, GetAgrippa, David D.
Oppose
Page numbers on book sources and
WP:OVERLINKing still need to be addressed. There is still ongoing talk page discussion and active changes to the article (not clear if the article fails 1e, or just wasn't initially ready for FAC). Please finish up the MOS items listed on the talk page, and clarify where Amaltheus' issues stand, and TD and OM.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment The Sources of variation section gives excess credit to Watson and Crick and the historical sequence is wrong. I have left a comment on the Talk page. This section does not have to be long because the article is about Evolution and not
DNA, but it must be accurate.--
GrahamColm
Talk
12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Support This is an excellent introduction to an important subject.-- GrahamColm Talk 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another error, this comes from using a primary source, probably:
:"In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the double helix structure of DNA.[12] This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA."
"This" is from the preceding sentence: the described double helix structure of DNA. But it isn't the "double helix structure" that helps demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code, but the base pairing, which immediately suggests how DNA could be the hereditary code by its copying mechanism being a function of its structure:
:"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." (From their article.) Again, the references have to say what they are attached to, not common folklore that the double helix is the coolest thing in the world about DNA. It's the base pairing.
This was and remains one of the most stunning breakthroughs in biology, it can't be rewritten to be something else for this article. --
Amaltheus (
talk)
02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Off-topic section moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Overstepping conclusion:
This sentence oversteps its reference by a wide degree. There is a big difference in natural and artificial selection, in that natural selection ultimately results in viable breeding populations of a new species. I think corn is the only instance where artifical selection has done that. Great Danes and German Shephards have no barriers to cross breeding. They are not species. Many crop plants are grown from clones (fruits for example). I suggest something along the lines of equating the human selection of desirable traits to the natural selection of traits fit to the organism's current environment. The conclusion, in any way, has to be tied to a source, not to a definition. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If the double helix offends people, get rid of it. Simpler is better. Rather than adding more detail to make it more "accurate" and "correct", I would advise dumping all the information in that area. Otherwise, we will be heading in a very negative direction. If vague bothers people, just remove that topic completely, IMHO.-- Filll ( talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted 17:56, 29 January 2008.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through extensive peer review, and modification in the course of obtaining GA status. We believe it is now ready for careful consideration of FA status. Filll ( talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Let's see... For basics, the isbn format breaks ISBN linking, external links should NEVER be formatted without text (there's a reason all usual Wikipedia web cites formats put the title there, people!), and if you're going to give full names in references, you might as well do the same in "further reading". Circeus ( talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) It might be best to ask here, which sections do you think should be put into prose and why? Which bulleted sections would be improved by being put into prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Referencing has been dramatically increased; despite my better judgment and general agreement with Filll on the need in an Introductory article which links to the primary document that is heavily referenced. None-the-less, there are now nearly 50 sources referenced. May we now consider that concern resolved? I am in strong disagreement with the POV claim. Perhaps you could expand upon that concern on the discussion page. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)-- Random Replicator ( talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent)Citations and referencing has been dramatically increased which was in direct opposition to our mandate to increase readability. I did this to address this specific oppose. The number of references are approaching 70; nearly double the number when you opposed. A hope you will be responding to my efforts as time is surely running out.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Removed "The Tree" that has been added and removed several times in regards to the concern over clutter. It has been very difficult to balance the pictures; again because of my experience with textbooks, with the more "stark" approach of Wikipedia. Hope the removal served to improve the general appearance. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) There are now nearly 70 references in an effort to address your specific concern. I am requesting that you specifically respond to these revision in citation numbers in order for me to determine if you are still in opposition and if possible, perhaps you could be more specific. Thanks for your input. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Response "The theory of evolution serves as the foundation for much of the research conducted in biology, including molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy." Toned it down just a tad --- this is not over-blown; hopefully it still emphasizes the importance of evolutionary theory in biology.-- Random Replicator ( talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments
(unindent) "elevate" That is why they only let me watch and not actually type anything! That line has been revised per your suggestion. They did let me add the title "Biology" to the Campbell / Reese Text. Thanks-- Random Replicator ( talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(unindent) Ok, that's the correct statement that Darwin accepted as fact the idea that heritable traits were a product of use and disuse reintroduced with three new references, and the paragraph revised to make the point clearer. .. dave souza, talk 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
(undent) I noticed that you checked off your concerns on Talk, both the factual concern and concern that it is not well written; yet the oppose remains. Were there other concerns or does this still stand on the more general opinion of it being short of FA standard?-- Random Replicator ( talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(undent) Wikipedia needs to establish credibility by citing excellent reliable sources, agreed. In our case; however, the entry was designed to increase access to a complex concept via a transition article. Everything in here is general knowledge. Our approach has been to basically use citations as a tool to open doors to even more general "laymen" type web resources. For example: [5] [6] [7] I didn't mean to suggest that they have to be web accessable; I'm just saying for our audience in an Introductory Article there is merit to doing so if it opens new resources for general readers. Face it, they are not going to go locate the Journal of Evolutionary Biology; however a cool web cite like National Geographic or PBS may be meaningful. The entire Evolution page is sourced from high level journals. It bespeaks of credibility; but it offers nothing to the general reader. What I see as a strength of our entry; at least by some, is seen as a weakness. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) How do you think it looks now? I think that having the evolution template in the white space next to the TOC and under the dinosaur image works fine. (By the way, I think there were people on the talk page discussing the images, too - I've lost track now.) Awadewit | talk 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Some specific issues with just the first two paragraphs. There are plenty more:
The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.
Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.
Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.
Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."
(Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. " This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.
He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."
It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.
This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.
This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.
What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.
No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.
--- section moved to discussion page ----
This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.
Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."
Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.
There are just too many problems with the article. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):
Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. -- Random Replicator ( talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.
"From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool."
The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.
Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph:
"A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population."
It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool."
The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler:
"Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations."
So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this.
Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.
This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
*Object I note the discussion above regarding creationism and my object is wholly founded in this area. Evolution is a theory which is accepted by the vast majority of science, and indeed probably the vast majority of humanity. However, unlike flat-earthers the controversy and opposition to it is (the important thing for a WP Featured Article) notable. I think that the treatment of the opposition need (in fact should) not be over-egged in an "Introduction" article, but it shouldn't be omitted altogether as it currently effectively is. In a similar vein, I'd expect an Introduction to Global Warming article to include reference to the fact that this is not an uncontroversial topic and give a clear marker for those interested in reading more about the arguments. This is a nomination for a Featured Article. Such articles must espouse our highest possible standards, one of which is comprehensiveness. I think this is easily fixed, in probably no more than two or three sentences, perhaps, to keep things on-topic and NPOV, focussing on key arguments used by opponents of the theory that aren't used by critics who support the theory. I suggest the article puts forward apparent shortcomings in evolutionary theory, rather than a discursus explaining creationism or any other ism. Perhaps that's not the best way to treat it, but it can't just be relegated to a {{for}} or {{main}} tag. And while it is, I need to object to an excellent article. If fixed, I'd need to review the article in more depth but it does look like an otherwise FA quality article at first reading. --
Dweller (
talk)
11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
OK, let's examine whethere the following words appear at all in the body text of the article:
As I've said, it's not enough to dismiss notable opposition with just a main tag, and the one usage of "objection" is in a Summary section. Well, isn't a Summary usually, erm, a summary of what's been discussed?
What I'm looking for is a brief, honest note in an appropriate place in the article to the fact that there is notable opposition to evolution. Probably two or three sentences. Possibly one if well written and in an appropriate place. (The Global warming FA does with a wikilinked half a sentence in its Lead (!), with a main tag lower down, under an appropriate heading. Not sure about that, as Lead usually summarises the article, but you get my point.) I'm not looking for a treatise on Creationism; it would be inappropriate here.
Incidentally, the one relevant main tag you have is in an inappropriate place, as I don't believe that Creation-evolution controversy is really about "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution", but rather a perspective on the fundamentals of the theory, rather than how it works ("mechanics"). -- Dweller ( talk) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
cross posting from User talk:Random Replicator
Gosh, what a can of worms for what I thought would be fairly straightforward to address.
I don't really mind how my objection would/could be addressed (I suggested a methodology, but if it doesn't work, that's fine), but I would expect that the introduction article to any scientific theory that had notable opposition (and boy is it notable) should at least mention the opposition, or it is dishonest.
Wikipedia's role is not to decide what is "Truth" or "Right" or "Good for 14 year olds", but to be a mirror of the world we live in. And there is opposition to this theory, even if scientists the world over regard that as barmy.
The controversy over evolution affects school curricula the world over. It fills our newspapers. It's the subject of countless TV documentaries. And it's obviously something that both scientists and clerics spend a lot of time fruitlessly trying to win unwinnable arguments about.
So any article seeking to fulfil the criterion of comprehensiveness needs to mention the controversy.
I'm surprised people disagree with this.
It's hard for me to debate on the talk page without stoking up the temperature - there already seem to be quite a few editors there with hot tempers and I'm not looking for controversy, just to see an article reach our highest values before it passes FA.
If you wanted, we could work in a sandbox on some wording, but I think from the looks of the article talk page that we're not ready to do that yet.
-- Dweller ( talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not to be a bearer of bad news, but as a result of your agitation, the article was just scrubbed and the discussion of the controversy was reduced even further and relegated to one or two links. So, sometimes there is a law of unintended consequences. I would have favored the material at least being mentioned and integrated in, but because of the trouble you caused, others lost patience. Sad.-- Filll ( talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The caption on the homologous structures: "Homologous structures. Note how the same basic structure appears repeatedly in different types of forelimbs of different species." The image shows the typical vertebrate forelimbs (I think, just glanced) above three different birds. Wings on birds aren't homologous so much as they're the same structure. They're all bird wings. The wings of bats and and arms of human beings, the example given in the Wikipedia article on homology are, indeed, homologous structures, more distantly the wings of birds are homologous with the wings of bats and arms of human beings, as are the forelimbs of all vertebrates. The wings of insects and of birds are analagous structures. But we don't usually say that the wings of one species of butterfly are homologous with the wings of another species. This caption should be deleted or the pictures of the birds should be removed from it. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.
The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.
Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.
The problem sentence, though: "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."
Actually it's the process by why all life accumulates changes over generations (leading to differences, through time, but something along the first part might suffice). All life changes over generations, but all life doesn't evolve due to changing over generations. Again, the people alive today, aren't the same as the folks alive 150 years ago, but human beings haven't evolved in 150 years.
Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."
Still like diversity better because it's a buzzword in the press.
This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.
He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."
How about,
"In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped later scientists to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."
This makes it unnecessary to explain more about Mendel or to timeline Mendel and early 20th century genetics in the first paragraph while still keeping it strictly accurate, also deals specifically with my issue about the next sentence on mechanisms of inheritance, again while being more accurate, not adding too much depth for the introduction and honoring the timeline.
It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.
"This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"
This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.
"The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."
This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.
(Sentence is no longer there) "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."
What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.
Is this the correct order?
I'd like to see this tied to a specific source. I took a seminar with one of the world's leading scientists on the issue of species, he wrote one of the most cited papers on the topic. I asked him during the seminar if scientists today understood speciation real well. I asked him because I thought this statement above was true. He said, "How can we be understand speciation if don't understand species?" I'm uneasy about the sentence, but maybe scientists do think they understand species really well 5 years later. I think it needs a reference, also, because it's so definitive.
Unequivocally and simply, yes.
No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.
--- section moved to discussion page ----
This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.
Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."
Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.
There are just too many problems with the article. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):
This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation."
The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.
The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.
Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in t
he same paragraph:
"A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population."It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool."
The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler:
"Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations."
So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this.
Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.
This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --
Amaltheus (
talk)
04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Support: Wassupwestcoast, Ben Tillman, DrKiernan, Kaldari, dave souza, Awadewit, Giano, Professor marginalia, Dweller, GetAgrippa, David D.
Oppose
Page numbers on book sources and
WP:OVERLINKing still need to be addressed. There is still ongoing talk page discussion and active changes to the article (not clear if the article fails 1e, or just wasn't initially ready for FAC). Please finish up the MOS items listed on the talk page, and clarify where Amaltheus' issues stand, and TD and OM.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Comment The Sources of variation section gives excess credit to Watson and Crick and the historical sequence is wrong. I have left a comment on the Talk page. This section does not have to be long because the article is about Evolution and not
DNA, but it must be accurate.--
GrahamColm
Talk
12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Support This is an excellent introduction to an important subject.-- GrahamColm Talk 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another error, this comes from using a primary source, probably:
:"In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the double helix structure of DNA.[12] This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA."
"This" is from the preceding sentence: the described double helix structure of DNA. But it isn't the "double helix structure" that helps demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code, but the base pairing, which immediately suggests how DNA could be the hereditary code by its copying mechanism being a function of its structure:
:"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." (From their article.) Again, the references have to say what they are attached to, not common folklore that the double helix is the coolest thing in the world about DNA. It's the base pairing.
This was and remains one of the most stunning breakthroughs in biology, it can't be rewritten to be something else for this article. --
Amaltheus (
talk)
02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Off-topic section moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Overstepping conclusion:
This sentence oversteps its reference by a wide degree. There is a big difference in natural and artificial selection, in that natural selection ultimately results in viable breeding populations of a new species. I think corn is the only instance where artifical selection has done that. Great Danes and German Shephards have no barriers to cross breeding. They are not species. Many crop plants are grown from clones (fruits for example). I suggest something along the lines of equating the human selection of desirable traits to the natural selection of traits fit to the organism's current environment. The conclusion, in any way, has to be tied to a source, not to a definition. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If the double helix offends people, get rid of it. Simpler is better. Rather than adding more detail to make it more "accurate" and "correct", I would advise dumping all the information in that area. Otherwise, we will be heading in a very negative direction. If vague bothers people, just remove that topic completely, IMHO.-- Filll ( talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply