Talk:Evolution

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.

Archives

2003–2005 Historical POV forks September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005 December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005 June 12–October 24, 2005 October 24–November 23, 2005 November 28–December 14, 2005 December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006 2006 January 2–February 6, 2006 February 6–March 23, 2006 March 3–April 5, 2006 March 31–May 4, 2006 April 20–July 7, 2006 June 24–August 25, 2006 June 27–August 26, 2006 August 18–October 2, 2006 October 1–November 16, 2006 November 6–27, 2006 November 26–December 20, 2006 December 11–23, 2006 December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007 December 20, 2006 December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007 2007 January 6–9, 2007 January 9–11, 2007 January 11–15, 2007 January 15–20, 2007 January 21–February 8, 2007 February 8–February 18, 2007 February 19–March 12, 2007 March 12–March 28, 2007 March 28–April 15, 2007 April 13–April 16, 2007 April 16–May 6, 2007 April 27–May 16, 2007 May 15–May 19, 2007 May 17–May 29, 2007 May 21–current

Misconceptions about evolution

My last suggestion for an article on 'evolution and perfection' was vetoed, but I'd like to toss another idea out there. There are no doubt many misconceptions about what evolution is and how it works. An article addressing these issues, such as misconceptions about evolution, or perhaps common misconceptions about evolution might be a future possibility. Some that come to mind are that evolution must involve increasing complexity, or that organisms propagate themselves for 'the good of the species'. There are articles out their about common mistakes and misconceptions students have about evolution as well which could be used as a source. Richard001 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, Evolution of complexity has already been created. Tim Vickers 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And an article on orthogenesis already exists as well.--Filll 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a range of articles that address the specific issues concerned (e.g. unit of selection), but would it be better to have an article addressing all such issues? You haven't stated your position; do you feel the same way as you did with my last proposal, i.e. that the matter is already sufficiently covered by other articles? Richard001 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a list, based on List of common misconceptions? Tim Vickers 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If such an article is to be created, it could use a lot of material from the Evolution FAQ and the Objections to evolution pages.--Thomas Arelatensis 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> As a historical note, there was a section in this article on misconceptions about evolution. It was a troll magnet and was eventually spun off into its own article, misconceptions about evolution. This helped tremendously in stopping the attacks on this article. The daughter article misconceptions about evolution was superceded by the present objections to evolution, and was eventually deleted by consensus. There was also a section on misconceptions about evolution in the introduction to evolution article but it was a troll magnet and discontinued as a result. There still is a section on evolution misconceptions in the article List of misconceptions and as can be seen List_of_misconceptions#Evolution. --Filll 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should redirect these pages to one of the two above (objections or the relevant section at list of misconceptions). What do you think? By the way, there's no history of misconceptions about evolution being deleted. Are you sure you have the right name? Richard001 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The actual titles were Misunderstandings about biological evolution and Misunderstandings about evolution. My mistake, and I apologize. After a while, these articles just start to all blend together. I am not sure if redirects are necessary or advisable.It would certainly be possible. I am sort of surprised that redirects were not produced when they were deleted, frankly. What do other people think?--Filll 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. After looking at the deletion discussion I think they didn't redirect because there was no article really suitable. It's an article worthy topic, no doubt, but there are already so many overlapping articles that it just becomes redundant to throw in another one. Thanks for your replies. Richard001 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirected all these titles to Objections to evolution, since having a redirect to the closest topic seems preferable to not having anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Selection under-emphasized

This article only makes a passing reference to sexual selection. Darwin himself thought enough of sexual selection that he devoted 13 chapters (out of 21) to sexual selection in The Descent of Man. Clearly, after writing the Origin of Species, he himself decided that Sexual Selection was very significant. I would suggest adding a dedicated subparagraph to this article entitled "sexual selection" which would summarize the main points in a few sentences. Of course, the existing wikipedia article on Sexual Selection already has all the details, so it only needs to be a brief summary here. My point is: sexual selection is a very significant factor in evolution (lay-persons often wonder how evolution explains the peacock's tailfeathers) so sexual selection deserves more than a single sentence in this article.

Noleander 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article can't cover every subject in detail and omits some topics altogether. Sexual selection gets a mention, and we can't follow NPOV by over emphasizing sexual selection. The parent Sexual selection article is full of great info but the article is poorly written and organized. Hopefully posting here will recruit more editors to work on that linked article. I am not opposed to expanding the topic in this article slightly. Thanks for the suggestions. Regards GetAgrippa 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander. You talk as if this article was a specialised one on NeoDarwinism, GetAgrippa, but surely it isn't, and there are articles on the modern synthesis and on NeoDarwinism that are the proper place for detail; this article should be the broad entry point to all aspects of evolution and NPOV requires it to cover a lot more, not less. --Memestream 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd I didn't talk like anything. I too had argued for more info and more detail in past incarnations of the article, but this article was a huge mess. It is pretty basic like most encyclopedias at present. I stated I was not opposed to expanding the topic appropriately in the article. Why not offer up a suggestive paragraph or sentences with references for an example. Recently I was successful in reaching a consensus for small changes related to hybridization by offering up posits and supporting literature. Actually NPOV doesn't require you cover everything is my understanding of Wikipedia-someone correct me if I misunderstand. I know, I find it odd too, but it is an encyclopedia and not an Evolution text book is the argument I hear most. Regards GetAgrippa 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very rough draft of what I was thinking of adding. The goal is to briefly define Sexual Selection, give one or two examples, and explain how it is not inconsistent with the underlying principles of Natural Selection. It would be placed in the current Evolution article where Sexual Selection is currently mentioned (in the Natural Selection section):

One particular variety of Natural selection is Sexual Selection, which is selection that occurs as a result of mating choices based on attractiveness, and individuals fighting for the right to mate [wording needs improvement]. Examples of traits that have evolved as a basis of Sexual Selection include (insert here some examples). Sexual Selection can produce traits that appear to be inconsistent with the survival of the fittest prinicples commonly associated with Natural Selection, but some researchers have theorized that males that have the energy and resources to develop elaborate decorative features (or to win fights against rival males) must be healther and more efficient at feeding, than males that cannot develop elaborate decorations. [citation needed] Noleander 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a comment on this, Fitness (biology) is defined as the contribution an organism makes to subsequent generations, so success through sexual selection is entirely consistent with evolution acting to maximise fitness through natural selection. This draft is really not very clear on that point. Tim Vickers 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What about using the current wording as a start:

A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates. Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent in males of some animal species, despite traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls or bright colors that attract predators, decreasing the survival of individual males. This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits.

Main articles just cannot cover everything in as much detail as all would like. This article has come a very great distance in a year (just look at the history). It will continue to get better. Look how many good edits have been made recently! However, if a person wants to help, cleaning up some of these horrendous daughter articles is a good place to start. And sexual selection sounds like it needs some work.--Filll 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make mention that sexual selection is usually manifest as competition between males and/or female preferences for certain male traits. This drives sexual dimorphism and the development of ornamental, defensive, etc. structures. I also agree with TimVickers that Fitness is what needs to be emphasized not Fittest, nor do I think we need to explain any advantage and disadvantage (that applies to evolution other than sexual selection also-like Garter snakes evolving resistance to tetrodotoxin from newts in their diets are also slower because of mutations in sodium channel making them easier prey). If we make these changes then we need to address asexual reproducing organisms evolution for NPOV-perhaps mention Muller's ratchet. Recent articles indicate gene duplications provides a source for evolution to act in asexual critters. The notion that asexual organism are limited in their ability to evolve is now being challenged. It would seem prudent to mention both sexual and asexual organisms evolve because we do tend to emphasize the sexual organisms and mechanisms of heredity and mechanisms of evolution. A glance at the numbers and variety of asexual organisms reveals our bias towards sex. I don't know do we really need to change the current statement? Some of the suggestion reads like OR. GetAgrippa 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the silence (whatever happened to Silence?). The argument has fizzled so it seems prudent to leave it be. The parent Evolution article could easily grow into a book and that would be useless as an encyclopedia article. Linking daughter articles do address the issue of completeness and I agree with Fill that many of the those articles need work. Too bad there is not a master plan or strategy to organize Evolution subtopics-maybe an A-Z index of just evolution related info. Reckon, GetAgrippa 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

theory

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evolution is a theory. This should be emphasized in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.34.22 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC) This is not necessary. This issue has already been discussed at length here and elsewhere and is already adequately catered for in the referred article Evolution as theory and fact at the top of the articleTmol42 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with that. Evolution is a theory....and i dont see it stated as so. maybe i'm overlooking it, but i don't see it. and it really shoudl be emphasized. >>>Stef<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.214 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) This again. Can someone just archive/delete/blow up this crap? Tmol42, my suggestion is to never actually respond to trolling. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Ya know this "it is only a theory" is interesting. When does a theory move from "just a theory" to a pretty good understanding of the phenomenon? I was thinking of Hugh Huxley's Sliding Filament Theory of actin and myosin interaction, of which now is referred to as a model. With absolute certainty the filaments slide together so not much of a debate anymore. Evolution is a fact. Population genetics and modeling have accomplished much the same of moving from theory to a pretty good understanding of the phenomenon. The same applies to many physics related theories. "Just a theory" seems an understatement of the significance of any given theory in biology or physics. How many science articles would have to be prefaced with "this is only a theory". Perhaps there should be two articles. This article on biological evolution and an article on the the theory of evolution. Hee, hee, hee. Regards GetAgrippa 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) In fairness to the original poster, they may not be trolling. They could genuinely be very stupid. Tomandlu 14:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC) From wiki: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity. In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis." I think that there is a point in what 72 said. Most people think evolution is a 'theory' in the common usage sense. And there is a confusion between the word 'evolution' as a type of change and a scientific theory. I think this should be mentioned somehow in the lead. Yes I know it has a diambig section but I think many people just read the first paragraph and ignore the disambig. What level of reader are these articles directed towards? Should they be easy enough for say the average ninth grader? Or a senior college biology major? Massachew 14:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) There's a link at the very top of the article to evolution as theory and fact, which clarifies this issue. IMHO it would be a mistake (although a tempting one) to write every wikipedia article on evolutionary theory for an intended audience of creationists (as in correcting misconceptions, rather than pandering to them). Tomandlu 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) But what is the assumption on the education level of the readers? Should ninth graders be able to understand these articles. And when you say 'creationists' you are referring to bible literalists, correct? I know Catholics who feel that evolution is 'just a theory'. Highly educated Catholics. I guess my point is should the lead tell emphatically that it is not just a theory if so many confuse this issue. And should it be mentioned that 'evolution' is a process and a theory. The way the word is used. It seems there is a common usage and a more strictly scientific usage. Should that be explained early in the article. I do not think people will go right to the disambig page first. I think they will just start reading. I think most people do not think evolution is the small changes that happen from generation to generation. For instance in the article on schizophrenia should it be mentioned that it is not a 'split personality' as is so commonly assumed. And that multiple personality disorder is not common and some think it does not exist. Should the articles start by dispelling common misconceptions? Massachew 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Catholics who disagree with the Pope? (and not in a good way ;) Bottom line, no one worries about "theory" (as in a scientific theory) in any other area (gravity, etc.). Just evolution. I do understand what you are saying, but I hate it when the evolutionary articles end up turning into assaults on creationists and similiar, rather than NPOV. IMHO the "oh, it's just a theory" crowd have come with preconceived notions that you aren't going to shift. That said, don't let me stop you trying, but my advice would be not to let it taint the NPOV of the article. For instance, I would love to blather on in the article about how chromosome 2 is a pretty good proof of evolution and the evasiveness of creationists, but I resist temptation... Tomandlu 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC) I think many people when they speak of economic theories and say theories of personality use the term theory has a 'best guess' There are many theories of personality. And for instance : "The labor theories of value (LTV) are theories in economics according to which the true values of commodities are related to the labor needed to produce them" In economics and psychology the term 'theory' is used as a possible explanation but not a proven one. Massachew 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC) This article is extremely simple so it reaches an appropriate audience for an encyclopedia. The "theory" and "misconception" arguments have popped up thousands of times, and had been addressed in past versions but consensus removed them. I think it is wiser to spend time writing what evolution is and not what is isn't-misconceptions. It does a decent job much like other encyclopedias. GetAgrippa 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) The word "theory" is used twice in the lead. In addition, there's a hatlink to "evolution as theory and fact" before you even get into the text. Evolution is both fact and theory (observation and mechanism to explain the observation). Forget about gravity - 'extinction' is "just" a theory as well...and one which is far less well understood than evolution. Guettarda 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Theory is used twice (hadn't noticed). I remember an excerpt from Gould was used to address the fact and theory issue in a past version. All the concerns at issue have been addressed in link or word it appears. Regards GetAgrippa 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Perhaps we should qualify evolution is both an empirical theory, and a theorem-it is mathematical and part deductive. Hee, hee. Light two candles instead of one. I would love to read the creationist logic in addressing theory and theorem. Perverse. GetAgrippa 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Now is Lamarkism a theory? From reading this article I am getting the idea that a theory has to be validated to be called a theory. Are there not theories that simply are wrong? Massachew 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC) A theory has to be falsifiable. Lamarckism did not stand the test of time, but the sentiment still exits in a form some call neoLamarckism concerning epigenetic phenomena. So theories can be tested and fall short, and that is a testament to evolution theory having not done so-just more evidence to support. I had hoped the literature offered by link would address your concerns. I should add this is not a forum to educate individuals but a talk page to improve the article. Massachew you appear to be fishing to find some weakness in evolution to support a POV-this talk page is not for debate on the validity of the theory but a page to improve the article.[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) My point is that 'theory' is used differently in different articles here. Should there not be a consistency among articles? And if a theory is falsifiable and then falsified does it still merit the label 'theory' ? Massachew 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I do not agree with GetAgrippa that theories must be falsafiable. They must be capable of generating statements that can be compared to some observable phenomenon, but strictly speaking, hypotheses must be falsifiable, not the theories that generate them. Also, no, the definition of "theory" should not be consistent among all articles. The meaning of "theory" in the life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences is often different. My guess is that some article provide limited definitions of "theory." I would agree that the definition of theory in all articles pertaining to evolutiokn be consistent, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I am not familiar with the distinction that you suggest, between theories used to generate hypotheses and those hypotheses as the falsifiable elements. I would suggest that the idea that a "theory" must be falsifiable is a common shorthand for meaning that it has elements that can be tested, and so I think GetAgrippa's usage is fine and not greatly in contrast to yours. In any case, in response to Massachew's question, no, there is no simple label for "theory that has been falsified", and since theories cannot really be "validated" as you expressed above, the term is an inclusive one. I don't see where on this page you are seeing Lamarckism refered to as a theory, but I don't think there's any problem calling it one. It is, after all, a falsifiable theory, as opposed for example to intelligent design, which is not falsifiable and thus not a theory in the scientific sense. bikeable (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) So Lamarkism would be a falsifiable theory that has been falsified? And evolution is a falsifiable theory that has not been falsified and has been validated. And evolutionary theory is a fact? Massachew 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, Yes, and Yes-and-No. All evolutionary facts are part of the theory, but not all parts of the theory are evolutionary facts (they're just not contradicted by the facts). It's more like a dot-to-dot. The facts are the dots of the theory, and the purely theoretical is the lines between the dots. Essentially, the straighter the lines (i.e. the less interpolation you need to do to join the dots in a consistent pattern), the better your theory. Likewise, finding a dot that didn't fit the pattern you'd traced would indicate that you've drawn the wrong pattern. This is the principle of falsifiability. Likewise, the more complex and consistent your pattern, the more you can trust your theory. Or at least that's my understanding. I'd strongly suggest reading Evolution as theory and fact.Tomandlu 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I really think the word 'theory' should be consistent in all the science articles. There should be some characteristic of the concept 'theory' that should be common in theories of personality, economics, biology and physics. Massachew 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC) That's a problem for linguists, not articles on evolution. That said, in hindsight I wish science had adopted different words, but that's by-the-by.Tomandlu 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC) But I still think the word theory should be used in the same manner throughout all the articles. If no one else cares how different the term is used from one article to another I sure cannot single-handedly change all of that. Massachew 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Please, everyone, DNFT. Snalwibma 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Don't feedyourself. Massachew 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I'm a bit confused. What, exactly, are you suggesting we do to improve this article? And how has the term "theory" been misused in other articles? It appears that most of your questions have been answered above, but you obviously feel there is still a problem. Thanks, AlphaEta T / C 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Isn't a theory a very well-supported hypothesis? Guettarda 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC) No, for a variety of reasons but one is, a good theory generates hypotheses (in the sciences; in the humanities it is something else). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Humanities? You consider psychology and economics humanities? And can we not have 2 theories that use 2 different constructs to explain something? What I am saying it seems in certain articles that it implies we can only have only one prevailing theory. And that theory has to be backed up by much evidence. For instance in many case Ptolemy's theory is more predictive and more easliy used that Copernicus. And recently there has a little resurgence of Lamarkism. And certain theories even though that have many proven wrong facets can be very useful in the facets that are proven. I do not think it is that much of a constest to see who is right as much as what is useful. 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massachew (talk • contribs) I have no idea what you are talking about in your first two sentences. I also do not know where Pstologmy is more predictive than Copernicus.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I am trying to make sense of this, and struggling somewhat ... Are you (Massachew) proposing some amendments to the article (which is what this pages is supposed to be restricted to) or just sounding off about this and that? If you do have suggestions about how the wikipedia article on Evolution can be improved, let's hear them. If not, may I recommend another forum? Snalwibma 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) All people who understand evolutionary science understand that the word evolution is commonly used to refer both to a set of facts and to a theory. It does not matter what most 9th graders or college-students think: we simply have to make it clear to them that "theory" is neither "personal opinion" nor is it "objective truth." This discussion, it seems to me, has two threads: first, what exactly do we mean by theory, and, is there only one valid definition of theory? I think the answer to the second question is “no.” I think scholars of different branches of knowledge have different definitions of theory. We should be able to come up with one consistent definition of “theory” that applies to the life sciences. But there is no reason to assume that this definition will apply to “theory” in the physical or human sciences. Here is Stephen Hawking’s definition of “theory,” and I think it is a good one for the physical science: …a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that means). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. Note that even Hawking concedes that theories have some arbitrary elements. He does not explain what the relationship is between the arbitrary and non-arbitrary elements, but other philosophers of science have. Although Hawking does not use the word “falsifiable,” I think the idea is implicit in his assertion about predictions. Many people have suggested that theories must be falsifiable to be scientific. This reflects arguments made by Karl Popper and the concept of falsifiability is important in science – but it is not the sole criteria of theory, and it is not always a criteria of theory. In some of the social and human sciences it is not a criteria. Moreover, philosophers and historians of science have, for almost fifty years, been arguing that the view that a theory is a set of falsifiable statements is wrong . But much earlier, the scientist and philosopher C.S Pierce argued that in addition to the concepts of deduction and induction (central to Popper’s philosophy) a full account of science requires the notion of abduction – a creative and imaginative process. The importance of abduction is evident in the orbit of Uranus, which for a very long time did not follow the predictions of Newtonian celestial mechanics. If one took a simplistic view of “theory,” observations of Uranus when first discovered in 1781 would have “falisified” Newton’s theory. But this is not what happened. Instead, people suggested that there is another planet, whose influence would affect Uranus’s orbit – and this prediction was indeed eventually confirmed. Perhaps this is why Max Horkheimer defined what he calls the "traditional" definition of theory this way: Theory for most researchers is the sum-totl of propositions bout a subject, the propositions being so linked with each other that a few are basic and the rest derive from these. The smaller the number of primary principles in comparison with the derivations, the more perfect the theory. The real validity of the theory depedns on the derived propositions being consonant with the actual facts. If experience and theory contradict each other, one of the two must be reexamined. Either the scientist has failed to observe correctly or something is wrong with the principles of the theory . Note that Horkheimer too makes a distinction internal to theory between basic and derived propositions. Perhaps this corresponds to Hawking's distinction between arbitrary elements and predictions. Note tto that while Horkheimer calls attention to "actual facts," he does not use the words "prediction" or "quantities." I suggest that this is because hawking is providing a definition of "theory" appropriate for physicists, but Horkheimer is aiming at a more inclusive definition of theory. My main point is that good theories can’t just be ones that can be proven wrong – they must also generate new hypotheses when confronted with conflicting data. In his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher addresses the common creationist claim that the theory of evolution is a bad theory because it does not make definite predictions about the results of future observations. He does so by proposing a different account of “theory” than the simple “set of falsifiable statements” definition. I think this is a valuable book not because it is a response to critics of evolution, but because Kitcher is a very well-regarded philosopher of science, and this and other books by him have been very well-reviewed by biologists. Kitcher agrees with Popper that “there is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail” . But he takes into account Hempel and Quine’s critiques of Popper, the point that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists that we view scientific theories as consisting of an “elaborate collection of statements,” some of which are not falsifiable, and others – what he calls “auxiliary hypotheses,” which are. According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features: (1) unity: “A science should be unified …. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems” (1982: 47). (2) Fecundity: “A great scientific theory, like Newton’s, opens up new areas of research. …. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry …. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than i8t can currently answer. But incompleteness is now vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity …. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies” (1982: 47-48). (3) auxiliary hypothesis that are independently testable: “An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save” (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus’s orbit). Note that Kitcher’s description of scientific theories avoids a reliance on quantification and prediction. Like other definitions of theories, including Popper’s, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) “observational consequences.” But, like the observation of irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, falsification is only one possible consequence of an observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible – and equally important – observational consequence. Kitcher’s account of a good theory of course is based not only on his understanding of how physical sciences work. He is also taking into account the way the life sciences work. According to Kitcher, this is the essence of the theory: The main thesis of evolution is that species are not fixed and immutable. One kind of organism can have descendents that belong to a different kind. From one original species, a number of different kinds may be generated. . The major claim of a Darwinian theory of evolution is that the principal factor of change is natural selection: The most important evolutionary changes come about because some allelic pairs are fitter than others, and these obtain greater representation for their constituent alleles in subsequent generations . From Kitcher’s point of view, Darwinian theory is without question an extraordinarily successful theory, and I hope this article can communicate why: The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative. A Darwinian history is a piece of reasoning of the following general form. The first step consists in a description of an ancestral population of organisms. The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the population through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent. Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of biological questions . The same kind of story can be told again and again to answer all sorts of questions about all sorts of living things. Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions … can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories. Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check . Darwin not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of life. He also gave a structure to our ignorance. After Darwin, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of Darwinian histories. The way in which biology should proceed had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that biologists had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers. . I leave it to others to decide if, and how, any of this could be incorporated into the article. I am sure we can explain it in a way that is clear to someone who knows little about science. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Wow. this thread is still ongoing. Thanks Slrubenstein for your input-great info by the way. I think Massachew realizes the distinction between theory and scientific theory as he quoted the Wiki article. I have yet to read a cogent contribution but more questions related to the validity of evolution. Many editors consider him trolling. Perhaps we should state that evolution is nested theories, hypotheses, models, etc that relate to the process and are unified. Often semantics is different in different disciplines. GetAgrippa 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Coming from pilosophy of science, I thik Kirtcher has a fresh POV and a valuable one. I hope we can figure out an appropriate way to incorporate at least some of his views into the article! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Massachew is another Raspor sock. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks Raul. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I knew something was suspicious about the editor. What's this make? Raspor Sock #10 or so? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Slrubenstein, isn't the fate of all theories, at least in the physical sciences, falsification? I think Newton's Theory of Gravity, being the tremendously successful theory that it is, is a good example (falsified not by the orbit of Uranus but by the "bending" of light, large masses and/or high speeds). My interest would be related to the wiki on theory. We can continue the discussion on that Talk page if you think it's not relevant here. Thanks, AikBkj (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC) What is importantis not what I think but what verifible sources think. On the relation between Newton and Einstein's theories, I think Thomas Kuhn, for example, is relevant to Wikipedia. What I think, or what you think, are not. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I find your response somewhat disingenuous in that it is wikipedians who select the sources to quote and which thoughts to highlight, etc. Possibly Kuhn would be the first to point out that there is a "social" influence on the wikipedia (with similarities to the social as opposed to logical selection of a paradigm?). To say that what wikipedians think is not relevant would be the ideal. If only it were so. As a case in point, it was a wikipedian and his thinking (not the sources) which decided to highlight the thought that falsification is not necessarily a criterion for a theory. After your large contribution to the wiki on “theory”, I asked this of you on your Talk page; “I found some of your talk on the "Evolution" talk page which it looks like you copied and pasted into the "Theory" article. I'm glad you shortened it considerably. Any chance you can further clean up that section? Also, try to be careful and not load otherwise less controversial articles with ammunition (adding fuel to the fire) for more controversial articles. For the Theory article, it would seem like a good idea to stick to what is generally agreed upon as the criterion for scientific status and then a very short comment on differences with links to the appropriate camps of thought (Popper, Kitcher, etc.).”. IMHO you have POVed and degraded the theory article and now wish to slam the door shut. You chose to significantly highlight the controversial. Your claim that what you think is not important is, to say the least, curious. I would again ask that you either clean up your mess on the theory page or just delete your contribution. AikBkj (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC) You do not make any sense. Is there anyone here - GetAgrippa, Orange Marlin, Tim, Raul, who can decipher for me what he is saying about my POVing and degrading the theory article? I do not understand his comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I'd like to ask of AikBkj how a clarification of what consituttes a theorycan constitute a degradation?Maybe if you started with sources as to what you understand a theory to be, and how thismay depart from the section SLR worked on, this might be better understood by all?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) The falsification of theory is perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of the criterion for scientific status. In addition, it can be used as a lever in other articles which are more controversial. But falsification is exactly what Slrubenstein chose to discuss in some detail in the article on theory. It is my understanding that encyclopedic articles should concentrate on that which is well established and generally accepted, not the latest and greatest or those things which are hotly contested. His thoughts on the topic appear to have been spawned by debate in one of the more controversial topics, that of evolution. I feel it is telling that his contribution to the theory article originated as Talk on the evolution page and IMHO represents the spreading of controversy. I don't see how my position is so difficult to understand. AikBkj (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC) First, adding another point of view without deleting other views always makes an article more NPOV, not less NPOV. Second, Popper was a philosopher and mainstream philosophy of science has rejected his claims about falsification and theory for over 50 years. I do not doubt that some people still accept Popper's views, but the mainstream view among philosophers of science rejects Popper. There is no controversy. There is no ongoing debate. The debate occured and was resolved fifty years ago. Third, I have provided verifiable sources for all my edits. Hempel, Quine, and Kitcher are so notable they all have Wikipedia articles which, by the way, I never contributed to nor played a role in creating them. It has long been my view that the articles on theory and on the scientific method are seriously flawed. I just have not had time to work on them. The discussion here provided me with an opportunity to go over Kitcher's book and summarize parts of it. But his claims are not just about the theory of evolution, they are about theory in general. And he is an important, notable philosopher of science. So why shouldn't I add material to the theory article? I have made the article more accurate, and more complete. it is closer to compliance with NPOv. I followed V and NOR to the letter. I still fail to see any problem. I am not pushing any view except this: Wikipedia articles should not only comply with NPOV, they should be accurate and up-to-date. I am embarassed that we have some articles where research stopped with fifty-year-old sources and views. I want our articles to be better. Shouldn't you? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, I would like the wikis to be current and the best they can be. I do not doubt your assessment of the status of falsification, except, perhaps, as it pertains specifically to the physical sciences. Consider the statement by Stephen Hawking that "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory." (see the section in Theory article - Description and prediction). If (1) an individual has this view, (2) knows of numerous theories, even very useful ones that have been contradicted and (3) knows of no characteristic of theories which would make them immune to contradiction, then it seems reasonable to expect that all physical theories will eventually be contradicted. I would go so far as to say that it is highly likely that any (physical) scientist working at the frontier of his field would hold this position. I can think of a number of instances where deletion produces a more neutral article. Consider the editors to hold to generally agreed upon POV C and two controversial POVs, A and B. Camp 1 edits into the introduction C, A and ~B (a belittling of POV B). Due to consensus, Camp 2 has not been able to edit its POV B into the introduction. Ideally the article should contain only C. The editors should strive to improve the article by eliminating both A and ~B. However, just the elimination of ~B would be an improvement. The elimination of ~B with the addition of B produces marginal improvement in my estimation. So when I eliminated ~B from the introduction, my intent was to be very careful not to introduce B into the article (and I felt I did so quite successfully). I feel that it is more likely that deletion will produce a more NPOV article than addition for the following reasons. One could argue that an article with POVs C, A and B would be balanced. If most the effort (and space in the article) was on C, than possibly. In my experience, it is too often the case that the majority of effort and space is given to POVs (A and ~B) and (B and ~A). AikBkj (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof of natural selection ?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This may be old news but if it isn't and you find it useful, by all means feel free to use it as you see fit.: Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks but I think we have enough evidence from peer-reviewed journal articles that we don't really need this. We don't want Wikipedia to be a compendium of all knowledge on the web. in fact, I think our article is better than the one linked! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC) No problem. My knowledge of and interest in evolution is just one jump ahead of marginal. I do read the Georgia Straight on a regular basis so sometimes I pass the info along, : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) But how can the central premise of evolution (that species can be formed from other species through natural selection) be falsified? What obvservation would falsify this most important premise? Patonq (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Well, I guess the most straightforward way would be this: provide compelling evidence that a species came into existence through a different mechanism. That's all. Offer an alternative and show how there is more evidence for the alternative, and we would have to concede at leasst that natural selection does not account for all examples of speciation. Be that as it may, see what I wrote above about theory. Hypotheses must be falsifiable but theories are not just sets of hypotheses, they include premises that are not themselves hypotheses and not subject to falsification - this is true of all scientific theories. The claim that speciation occurs through natural selection is better understood as a problem solving strategy. If one assumes that this premis is true, then, when one is confronted with a wide variety of phenomena - why are the internal organs of orchids so elaborate? Why are male birds of paradise so brightly colored? why do bats typiucally roost upside down? Why are the kmamalian fauna of Madagascar so distinctive? - one is led to look for data that really enriches our understanding of all these phenomena. Be that as it may, the premise you identify breaks down to two components: (1) a portion of the ancestral population can become geographically isolated in an environment that makes particlar demands, and (2) not every adaptation to an environment is equally advantageous. Both of these can be falsified, and in fact, scientists have only found and abundance of evidence supporting both claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC) But my point is there is no observation that will falsify the concept. In order for a theory to be scientific the proponents of that theory must give and example of an observation that would occur if the theory was not true. If heliocentrism was not true we would observe no parallax in the stars. Now tell me if species did not come about through natural selection what would we observe to validate this point? This has to be addressed. You must say ' if my theory is not true you will see X' You cannot give me that X. NS is not falsifiable just as Popper said. Patonq (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I repeat: read what I wrote about theory above. It is clear you have not. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I read it. But you did not state X, what one would see if NS was not true. If life did not come about by NS what would we see? Just answer that simple question. Patonq (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Then you know that in science not all propositions must be falsifiable. You have also just changed the question - you are now asking about "if life did not come about by NS..." No evolutionary biologist or natureal historian, certainly not Darwin, ever claimed that NS caused life to come into existence. So I do not understand the point of your question. I do not care how one would falsify a proposition no one has ever made. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC) But how can the central premise of evolution (that species can be formed from other species through natural selection) be falsified? That was my original question. There is no observation that will falsify. Therefore a tautology. Go ahead tell me what we would see different if species formed other species through a method other than natural selection. Patonq (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Ask Karl Popper maybe he or she knows :) Albion moonlight (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Actually Poppers ideas around verifiability are more apt in this situation. If someone were able to give an empirical example where natural selection did not take place then the theory would become suspect. Popper was far from the being the ultimate authority on such things. He was just a guy who had some very interesting ideas, : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Still the point is that there must be an observation predicted if the theory is not true. The classic example is 'the universe was created 5 minutes ago to look like its been around for billions of years' Then you ask 'well if your theory is not true how would thing look different and you say they wouldnt.' See no observation to see if the theory is wrong. There is no answer that is why NS is not falsifiable. Now I can say that the big bang happened. What would I see if the theory is not true. I can say I would see a universe that is not expanding. See my point. Just tell me what we would observe if NS is not true. Patonq (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Darwin's theory explains how tenrecs evolved on Madagascar: in the late Mesozoic or early Cenozoic ancestors of tenrecs rafted over to from contitental Africa to Madgascar. This process stopped when the island was too far away. descendents of the original continental population evolved into hedgehogs, shrews, moles and porcupines due to selective pressures as larger predators evolved. On Madegascar these pressures did not exist and tenrecs retained the simpler body plan of their ancestors and occupy diverse niches unoccupied by competitors - niches that are occupied by competitors on the continent. Now, how might one falisfy this? Easy: (1) was Madagascar ever close enough to the continent that animals like tenrecs could have rafted over? This can be answered by looking at similar species in similar environments. (2) since that time did the island drift far enough away from the continent that other animals could not raft over? This can be answered by looking at the geological record. (3) do tenrecs on Madagascar and hedgehogs, porcupines, shrews and mols have common ancesotrs? tis can be answered by looking at the foissil record from the late Mezosoic. (4) are all tenrecs related? This can be tested by looking at anatomical (and genetic) similarities among them. here are four positive claims any one of which coulod be demonstrated to be wrong. Thus, the theory falsified. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I appreciate your well thought out and knowledgeable answer. But why did not the tenrecs evolve on the island? You are saying there is something different about the island that prevented large predeators to come about. And could it be that the large predators were too large to raft over? Good example though I have to think about it more. Thanks. Patonq (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Right - tenrecs are smaller than their predators. But if it could be shown that predators of tenrecs could have rafted over in the same way, that too would falisfy the theory (you are right that the theory relies on the proposition that thepredaotrs of tenrecs were not able to raft over to Madagascar). So yes, this would be another way to falsify the theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) But lets say that the tenrecs and the other animals came about through a process other than evolution through natural selection that would not have stopped the tenrecs from swimming over. Patonq (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Well, scientists studying tenrecs are always free to propose another mechanism and provide the evidence for it, of course! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Well its back to the original point. There would have to be a way to point to a speciation and say 'that speciation happened not through natural selection'. For instance if we breeded rats for a certain characteristic in captivity and then release a large number of those rats into a rural area then five years later took a sample of the rats in the area how would we be able to tell the naturallly developed rats from the ones that were 'designed'? Patonq (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Genetic drift would be one means. That said, perhaps the current discussion would be better served on someone's talk page as it does not seem to be about improving the article itself. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and meaning

Biological evolution as a series of objectively observable physical events including mutation, reproduction, and death is an obvious and necessary component of understanding biological evolution. The discovery of DNA and the development of computational abilities has allowed studies in iterated complex processes and thus the application of information science to see biological evolution from a deeper level; to see biological evolution as the biological evolution of information systems within physically and chemically evolving nonliving information systems. Yet this still is mere data self-organizing. Biosemiotics takes this one step further by trying to apply the study of meaning as defined by Semiotics. Semiotics is a logic based study of "sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems". For example, a molecule of sugar is an object that can be interpreted by a bacteria as a sign of the presence of food. This event can be understood and evaluated in terms of meaning rather than merely as a physical, chemical, or biological event. See http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/casys99.html for more. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kitcher

I have no objection to the archiving of the "theory" thread since most of it was not directly about evolution. However, the following material is specifically and explicitly about the theory of evolution. I'd like to know if anyone thinks there is room for this material in this or a linked article:

In his book, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher addresses the common creationist claim that the theory of evolution is a bad theory because it does not make definite predictions about the results of future observations. He does so by proposing a different account of “theory” than the simple “set of falsifiable statements” definition. I think this is a valuable book not because it is a response to critics of evolution, but because Kitcher is a very well-regarded philosopher of science, and this and other books by him have been very well-reviewed by biologists. Kitcher agrees with Popper that “there is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail” . But he takes into account Hempel and Quine’s critiques of Popper, the point that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified (presumably what Hawking alluded to as arbitrary elements), and the point that good theories must also be creative. He insists that we view scientific theories as consisting of an “elaborate collection of statements,” some of which are not falsifiable, and others – what he calls “auxiliary hypotheses,” which are.

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features: (1) unity: “A science should be unified …. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems” (1982: 47). (2) Fecundity: “A great scientific theory, like Newton’s, opens up new areas of research. …. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry …. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than i8t can currently answer. But incompleteness is now vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity …. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume that those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies” (1982: 47-48). (3) auxiliary hypothesis that are independently testable: “An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save” (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus’s orbit).

Note that Kitcher’s description of scientific theories avoids a reliance on quantification and prediction. Like other definitions of theories, including Popper’s, Kitcher makes it clear that a good theory includes statements that have (in his terms) “observational consequences.” But, like the observation of irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, falsification is only one possible consequence of an observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible – and equally important – observational consequence. Kitcher’s account of a good theory of course is based not only on his understanding of how physical sciences work. He is also taking into account the way the life sciences work.

According to Kitcher, this is the essence of the theory:

The main thesis of evolution is that species are not fixed and immutable. One kind of organism can have descendents that belong to a different kind. From one original species, a number of different kinds may be generated. .

The major claim of a Darwinian theory of evolution is that the principal factor of change is natural selection: The most important evolutionary changes come about because some allelic pairs are fitter than others, and these obtain greater representation for their constituent alleles in subsequent generations .

From Kitcher’s point of view, Darwinian theory is without question an extraordinarily successful theory, and I hope this article can communicate why:

The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative. A Darwinian history is a piece of reasoning of the following general form. The first step consists in a description of an ancestral population of organisms. The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the population through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent. Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of biological questions .

The same kind of story can be told again and again to answer all sorts of questions about all sorts of living things. Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions … can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories. Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check .

Darwin not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of life. He also gave a structure to our ignorance. After Darwin, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of Darwinian histories. The way in which biology should proceed had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that biologists had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers. .

My intention is not to keep an unnecessary tangent going - I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of discussion. I haven't read Abusing Science or Living with Darwin by Kitcher, but I will add them to my reading list. I think Slrubenstein's suggestion of Kitcher's work is a good one from what I've read. The Theory article mentions Kitcher so it is addressed by link. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Fundamental Issue Missed - Small Mutations over time.

There is a basic and fundamental concept that is missing regarding evolution which is that evolution is small mutational changes over millions of years. For example, as Evolutionary Giant Gould hypothesizes in The Tallest Tale. Natural History, 105, 18-27, a giraffe's neck grew at a slow rate over many generations so as to allow for similar mutations in the heart to take place, which would allow the blood to get to the brain. This is elementary to evolution and should definitely be mentioned in the first paragraph.

Labaneh (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in the second paragraph of the lead? Tomandlu (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. Looks covered to me already. --Plumbago (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Large changes in genes can happen in a single year (see Chromosome abnormalities). Significant changes in genes that allow a deadly virus to infect and kill species that virus never previously infected can occur in a single year (see H5N1 and Global spread of H5N1#Felidae (cats)). WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one way evolution can happen, and we cover that, we also cover such things as hybridisation, which are much more rapid. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New article suggestion - RFC

How would people feel about a new article, "Common Misunderstandings about Evolution"? Basically, a place to address all the lies, er, "misunderstandings" put out there by creationists? Tomandlu (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea was discussed (and ultimately decided against) at the top of this talk page. Lowell33 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, apols. BTW rejecting an article because it's a "troll magnet" seems an odd criteria (although I understand the sentiment).Tomandlu (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is often comical bordering on a droll magnet, but sadly sock puppets, POV pushers, and vandals are a continuous problem despite numerous efforts and strategies. It is just a biology and science article in an encyclopedia (representing the science) and not an insidious plot to corrupt any particular religion or challenge other thoughts. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this over and over on this talk page. We have two articles now that do this, as I noted previously (objections to evolution and list of misconceptions). We had a third article previously that also was on this subject with roughly the same title as you suggest and the community decided to remove it. This article had a section on this subject and the community decided to remove it.--Filll (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these articles are linked from here are they? Perhaps we should add them. Thanks for reminding us of there existence Fill. I think the Objections to evolution article would be a good place for Slrubenstein's suggestion of Kitcher's posits concerning a theory.GetAgrippa (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks Filll - I didn't know about list of misconceptions, and have now added an entry to this, and intend to add at least one more. As User:GetAgrippa says, a link to these from this article would be a good idea...Tomandlu (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The top of the article (where other links have been provided) would seem the best place, but I've no idea how those links work :( Tomandlu (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate external link

Regarding, http://longlivescience.com, it does not even have any other sites linking into it, which at least for me generally sets off some warning bells, especially when it's claiming to be a great resource for a scientific topic. It's articles do seem to be POV, and none that I've seen really contribute anything to the topic of this article. I don't see any reason to include such an external link. Newtman (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It definitely supports the intelligent design POV strongly, and I see that its Google PageRank is zero, but how can you tell there are no other sites linking into it? That said, I see no reason for having this external link, either. If it's deemed appropriate to include an ID external link, we should at least use a more popular one. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see what links to this page here. I know such google searches may be deemed inappropriate by some, but they generally give you a damn good picture of the greater reality. Newtman (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a notable organisation or a good source of information. Doesn't belong in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to add any further links to the external link section in my opinion. The links we have are good ones to legitimate websites. Too many dodgy links and it just turns into a link farm. This article by virtue of its topic will continue to be attacked on a regular basis. The attacks will be quite sophisticated (that one wasn't) at times. It's a good thing so many people have this page on their watch list. Sting_au Talk 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging

Proposal is to merge content from Mechanisms and processes of evolution

For those to whom it is not an obvious merge, some discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In principle, an article consisting of a rag-bag of various "mechanisms and processes" seems a bad idea. A better pattern, surely, would be to have each of those processes briefly outlined in the main Evolution article, and then to be the subject of its own more detailed article. This pattern, indeed, largely exists already. I see no reason, in principle, for an article occupying the middle ground, neither an overall explanation of evolution as a whole nor a detailed exposition of any one of the individual concepts. I'd say merge its content partly up to the main article and partly down to each of the subsidiary articles. In saying this I am making no judgement on the quality of the article Mechanisms and processes of evolution. Snalwibma 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly how it should be done. Thank you, Snalwibma, for making such a rational assessment of the situation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

____ i have a perfect solution. why not replace the mechanism section of this very article with a brief section. i mean this way through the article mechanisms and processes of evolution we can give a deeper coverage for processes and mechanisms in a better and independent manner. we can then later on have a set of FA's and GA's and promote evolutionary biology article's for fetaured topic. what do you say. i can re-write the section for this article. it will definitely act very benificial and truely speaking it sounds encyclopedic. thankyou Samsara and Snalwibma, Sushant gupta 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

like we have brief sections for

• Evolutionary history of life
• Origin of life
• Common descent
• Evolution of life
• History of evolutionary thought
• Social and cultural views
• Applications in technology

we can also have brief sections for outcomes and mechanisms and let the article mechanisms and processes of evolution exist so that the deeper subject matter can be retrieved from their. its a bit bulky to have so much stuff attached to this article and specifically to those 2 sections only. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, we can merge a few things into this article. For an overall outcome, I prefer Snalwibma's proposal. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

but what i have proposed can also help in improving the coverage of evolutionary biology articles coverage. now lets see how. if we design articles in a hierarchial manner, we can surely promote evolutionary bilogy articles for featured topics. it would be benifical for portal:evolutionary biology. right now it seems that all the details have been attached to this article only and other articles like adaptations are getting rotten. we can go in an order and then finally we can obtain a nice set of articles. we can reduce the content from the mechanisms and outcomes section of this article and fix it with sufficient content like other sections such as evoltuion of life. instead of having such long sections on genitic drift, gene flow and adaptations and many more we can club them in short. we can have mechanisms and processes of evolution as the main article for these sections. before creating the article i thought of this. if i would have been in your place i would have also raised the same issue. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I once again disagree. I think we should jump straight to improving articles such as adaptation, genetic recombination etc. otherwise we'll never get the job done, and we won't be serving our readers. They come here wanting to learn something comprehensive about evolution, adaptation, or recombination. I don't think they come here to learn about "mechanisms and processes of evolution" quite as much. Focus on one specific thing, and try to do that well. Works in life, works in business, works for Wikipedia. I'll make it clear one last time: my offer to nominate mechanisms and processes of evolution for deletion still stands, for the reason that it covers the same material as this article, with considerable amounts being an identical copy. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

definition of evolution

I don't particularly care for the opening sentence of this article:

"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by using the word "trait", you're focusing on phenotypic change over time, and doesn't this specifically disqualify neutral evolution? (It seems to me that it using the definition given, neutral changes like UUU changing to UUC when both code for phenylalanine wouldn't qualify.) Wouldn't it be better to define evolution as "change in allelic frequency over time"? Bueller 007 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the past, I would have been less anxious to do this, because it might make this article less accessible. However, now that we have the Introduction to evolution article, this might make more sense. Comments?--Filll 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always learned that evolution was a change in allele frequency. I don't think it's too advanced to just say it.VatoFirme 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to aim for accessibility and keep the current introduction. Tim Vickers 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of evolution

Firstly, I am a newcomer.

While doing research on DNA I came across quite a lot of scientific criticism that questions evolution or at least key aspects of it. Mutations, mentioned in the second sentence in the main article, seems to have been disproved by the work of Dr Bruce Lipton for example, but there is also a lot more.

I hopped over to Wikipedia to read more, being used to a criticism section in an article. However, evolution's page does not contain such a section and its FAQ erroneously indicates that none of its criticisms have any support in biology. Even while I am no biologist, I can mention and give references to quite a few.

Seeing that this is a protected page and noting the sentiments on the FAQ, let me test the waters first. It seems the page really is not neutral and, given its importance, that a criticism section is long overdue, especially since the most recent and most exciting scientific advancements, certainly to me, has been in exactly these areas where evolution is questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. May I refer you to Objections to evolution, where I think you will find the sort of criticism section that you are looking for? Snalwibma 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we throw in a link to this article somewhere if it's not already there? Sheep81 09:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and look for some references, but I suspect that you are either misinterpreting these advances in biology, or you have been misled. thx1138 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did a little research on this Dr. Bruce Lipton. He's a complete crackpot. He hasn't "disproved" mutations or anything else. thx1138 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that Objections to evolution article is a bit general and vague and objections rather than than criticism, except maybe for the Michael Behe bit in the "Objections to evolution's plausibility" section. It seems to focus on the non-scientific parts of the evolution vs. creation debate which I suppose one should sidestep as far as possible. What I have in mind is a more concise, scientific and specific section to point those who wish to read further in specific directions. These directions being the known and documented holes in the theory. As tentative or indicative examples, but based only on preliminary research thus far, something like "evolution does not explain the sudden explosion of new life" plus a reference and "evolution does not explain leaps in development" plus reference for a second one. Thanks for the feedback on Lipton, although I am sure he'll disagree. Still, I want somebody closer to the topic to actually write the criticism section but for starters am arguing for its inclusion - it would have helped me a lot and seems warranted in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdid (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "known and documented holes" come from people with, shall we say, less then reputable backings. Lipton is a quack and far from a quality source. Actually, it would be better if you just go ahead and pitched your idea for this section, and the subsequent slant it will take (pro-id or pro-creationism) so we can go ahead and reject it. Read through the archives before you try to introduce this "idea". Baegis 12:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My original "idea" was to find the frontiers of science and I was hoping to find some pointers in this article, being accustomed to the criticism section that I've seen in many other articles in Wikipedia, one example being Socialism, but there are many others.

Funny, I was hoping to find an example in the Big Bang article but there, too, a criticism section is lacking, so that I settled for Socialism as an example. Anyhow, Simon Singh gives a table of criteria towards the end of his book on the big bang that shows for example that this theory has trouble explaining the formation of galaxies. This of course would be the first entry in the criticism section in the big bang article that I would suggest and I suppose that this is probably where the next few Nobel prices are waiting, either for those who can explain galaxies or develop a new theory to eventually either replace or augment the big bang theory in that it will better cater for the known gaps and holes in it. Singh's whole book is about how the big bang theory was initially obscure but eventually superseded the steady state model.

Anyhow, I am not an expert on the topic but what lies beyond evolution? Reading about recent developments in DNA research I found many comments on the scientific holes or questions posed to evolution and was hoping to find some kind of an enumeration of these in a criticism section in Wikipedia, but found that criticism on evolution is currently frowned upon. The Objections to evolution article that somebody mentioned is closer to the target, but still misses. Quoting from the article, something like 'Evolution has never been observed' basically adds nil to the debate while something more specific like, from one of the DNA articles

DNA acts as a kind of aerial open to the reception of not only the internal influences and changes within the organism but to those outside it as well.

and the conclusion that this may actually lead to a revaluation of evolution is much more scientific and much closer to home.

Now, again, I am not the one to write such a section, though I am willing to try. To some extent I am asking the knowledgeable evolutionists out there to tell us what are currently the known shortcomings of the theory. Where does evolution fail scientifically and why? Again, an example may be that evolution fail to explain the leaps in species development or that DNA reveals we have more in common with dolphins than with land mammals as proposed in Human evolutionary genetics.