View source for Talk:Evolution

If we are refering to the biological concept of evolution, and not some other kind of evolution (such as cultural evolution) then we have to state that we are discussing the biological concept. Then we state the referent.

----



Clearly don't need the word 'biological' as 'genetic' implies this



An encyclopedia article aims at clarity.  Clarity states, it does not imply.  We state what we are discussing, then we state the referent.



Redundant none the less - it is meaningless to talk about non-biological genetic change. Clarity may indeed state, but this means true clarity never implies, and thus there can be no truely clear encyclopedias. 



:not true. [[artificial life]], [[genetic programming]], [[genetic algorithm]]s, [[clanking replicator|machine replication]], all involve non-biological genetics and evolution. Unless one considers having genetics to automatically classify something as "biological," which strikes me as somewhat unusual when discussing computer programs and machinery.



Also removed telological language in statement about adaptation.

----

Guys, I find this a bizarre debate.  Evolution is a process; one can also speak of the concept of evolution.  You can reasonably say that the subject of an encyclopedia article titled "evolution" is either the process of evolution or the concept of the process of evolution.  It doesn't matter.



For my part, I think "A biological concept that refers to" is poor strictly on copyediting grounds.  I suppose that whenever we mention anything of which we have a concept, we should begin the article in this format? -- "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X".  So: "Validity is a logical concept that refers to..."  "Animal is a biological concept that refers to..."  Etc.  Jeez.  Why not just say "Validity is.." or "An argument is valid iff..." and "An animal is..."?  I don't see what the "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X" construction gains you.

----

It clarifies which concept of evolution we are refering to, the biological one.  The text flows from the general to the specific.  That is proper.  That maxmizes clarity.  There is no other way to unambigously show what we are talking about without using more words.  There is a reason why this principle is used by every other encyclopedia.

----

It is not the case that every other encyclopedia begins articles about things of which we have concepts with the words, "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X"--or anything like those words, either.  Yes, text ought to give something like genus and species when defining a thing.  That does not entail that we need to refer to the concept in describing the thing carefully.



I notice the new first sentence and paragraph.  A distinct improvement. --LS



----

Rearranged some text and clarified some issues. This should suffice as a first attempt. I aggree with Larry regarding the start of articles. --jml



----

The sentence "Evolution therefore allows life to persist over time" was changed to read "...to persist over <i>greater spans of</i> time."  Lineages can certainly evolve but still eventually die out.  Also, the paragraph on the molecular basis of evolution was added primarily to continue the campaign against teleological thinking about adaption.    [[Suzanne Elsasser|Suze]]  



Disagree.  Some lineages eventually die out, but there are others that show no sign of being about to, and life as a whole seems to be doing a great job persisting itself. --[[Josh Grosse|JG]]



I disagree, in that the phrase 'persist over time' does not mean 'persist throughout time', i.e., it does not imply eternal persistence.  So the change was unnecessary.  But the current wording is not bad - just not better, in my opinion.  [[Tim Shell|TS]]



-----

Is there a good place to put what I think of as "Evolution Analogizing".  For instance, we have a good entry on [[Meme]], but the concept of meme should be recognized for what it is - creeping evolutionary analogizing.  



----

The first paragraph defines biological evolution as change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. 

But this is surely not called transmutation, right? Something is wrong. Isn't evolution simply the change of species over time, and the appearance of new ones? Genetics belongs seems to properly belong to the ''theory of evolution'', because one could conceivably try to explain this transmutation without genetics. --AxelBoldt



I just changed the "refers to the change in the genetic characteristics of a [[population biology|population]] over time" because of the above reason. If we define evolution as the change of genetic characteristics of populations, then Darwin did not know anything about evolution. --AxelBoldt