Jump to content

Talk:Evolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lindosland (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 22 June 2018 (→Evolution =/= theory of evolution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Featured articleEvolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 17, 2005Featured article reviewKept
February 7, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
May 31, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 10, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

Introduction

This introduction needs an own table of contents - but seriously: please make it shorter, especially for the mobile page it is really confusing. --94.254.226.36 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over history there has been a cycle of efforts to re-focus it and indeed it may now be trying to do too much. Playing Devil's Advocate, whole paragraphs could be removed (and if necessary moved to the body). Paragraphs 3-6 are expendable if shortening is considered a high priority. On the other hand, I can see why the introduction has become a special extended discussion, and I'm not sure it is such a bad thing. So which bits are most confusing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the IP will be back (but you never know). You are right, I think, about paras 3-6, which are tangential to an immediate understanding of evolution; and para 7 is pretentiously padded out ("In terms of", "an understanding has been instrumental", "numerous fields", "significan impact", "not just .. but also", "involves the application of Darwinian principles") and should be cut down drastically, or removed. Leads are meant to be 3 or 4 paragraphs. Perhaps it's time for the axeman to strike. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has the energy this is at least one article where good feedback is quickly available to change proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or did we just make a proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've just about agreed to cut it down a bit, perchance ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chop it drastically and without mercy. An “overview” section atop the body might be a place to park the vital pieces that don’t quite fit in the short summary intro. If I find time and energy I will look it over and make a start, unless someone else gets there first. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So a big cut has been made by Chiswick. I think much of it is honestly self-evidently unnecessary in an intro. For the sake of good practice and potential discussion I'll name a few removed sentences which could maybe be recovered somehow, if anyone thinks necessary:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three editors having a quiet discussion on the talk page is not sufficient consensus to make wholesale changes to a feature article. At the very least you should be starting an RFC for this level of change. - Nick Thorne talk 11:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't making wholesale changes, we're trimming the lead to comply with the MOS and to focus on the topic of the article rather than ramble about tangentially related issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BRD but I can't see anything controversial requiring an RFC either: The intro is clearly a bit overloaded, but shortening a lead is not the same as massive deletion because leads should reflect the body--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we have consensus on careful trimming (even a whole lot of trimming), but not hacking. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how to do this unless there are comments explaining precise concerns--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Starting stating precise concerns would be great if anyone has them, but just some general suggestions would still help. Or just boldly make some focused reduction that can be simply justified in edit summary, and see what follows per BRD. In effect, that's just what happened -- a bold removal of several paragraphs, a revert, and this discussion. This is all typical WP methods; I don't think we require anything unique here. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nick Thorne, I would say that speciation is a widely recognized and important factor in evolution as well. It definitely needs a brief mention in the intro.Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the above. Suggest we just proceed in small steps, each one commented to explain its specific improvement. The principle is extremely simple - the lead should summarise the article's contents, and nothing else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small steps certainly, but each issue raised and discussed here and consensus sought before actual changes made to article. Remember, this is a featured article and there is no deadline, lets take the time to do this right. - Nick Thorne talk 13:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better version of the lead

Nick Thorne: What you may not have noticed is that the lead section has sprawled very considerably since the article was promoted to featured status. The promoted lead was both shorter and more focused than the current version, so we could consider reverting to what FAC considered worthy, or something very close to it. Here it is: Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become rarer. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of the traits to the next generation.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and the natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[3] In contrast with this, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift arises from the element of chance involved in which individuals succeed in reproducing.

A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the favoring of different traits by different environments result in the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of these populations as new species.[4] The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a single ancestral species through this process of gradual divergence.[1]

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the origin of species.[5] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[3] in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[6]

References

  1. ^ a b Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
  2. ^ Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210–26}. doi:10.2307/2408842.
  3. ^ a b "Mechanisms: the processes of evolution". Understanding Evolution. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2006-07-14.
  4. ^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
  5. ^ Darwin, Charles (1860). On the Origin of Species (2nd ed.). London: John Murray. pp. p. 490. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  6. ^ "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
    *"Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
  • FWIW - this new lead version seems excellent imo - and better than the current one - which seems too long and less clear. Drbogdan (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I much prefer the current lead. Sure, it is a long and complex lead, more so than is customary for a Wikipedia article, but this is a large, important and complex subject. We do not do our readers a service by dumbing down the lead. - Nick Thorne talk 15:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original lead has several merits, including 1) being the right length and number of paragraphs 2) having been fully reviewed 3) actually summarizing the article 4) not wandering off the subject of evolution itself onto side issues. "Long and complex" would be splendid if it matched the subject, but it doesn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chiswick. But I have to admit I can't understand Nick's explanation. Complex subjects deserve careful writing if possible, not complex writing? Complexity of style, and long length, are basically never something aimed at for their own sake?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC) To be more specific, trying to make discussion practical, could I suggest critics of the original version give details about which specific things need to be more complex or long?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I remain implacably opposed to this broad brush approach to revision of the article lead. As stated earlier, it is my contention that revision should be done in small steps and fully discussed before being implemented at each step. I remain completely suspicious of attempts to sweep away the current lead for some other version that omits a great deal of relevant information. If you think some aspect of the current lead is not required, please elucidate that point and we can have a discussion about it. As I said before, there is no deadline here, we can and should take our time to get this right. - Nick Thorne talk 15:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what has already been said, and keep the rhetoric under control please. I have been plain and clear on what's wrong and why the other version is better, see my comments above. At risk of repetition, para 5 "Consequences of selection" is about natural selection and more specialised topics, with some waffle about what scientists continue to do; para 6 "All life on earth" is about the Last universal common ancestor, not evolution at all; para 7 "In terms of practical application" isn't about much at all once the pompous phrasing (all that "significant impact" and "instrumental to developments" - we shouldn't be writing like that) is discounted: at most, applications might get one sentence in the lead. There is no prohibition against changes of any size when articles have gone astray, as the lead of this article certainly has. Let us await the views of other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like that new version, but I still think it falls short. It misses the history of life on earth and the fossil record that is inextricably linked to evolution and it doesn’t give a great coverage of the history (a bit too brief, considering the depth the article section has). As for the current lead, it definitely yammers on a bit much. I do want to remind everyone that there is an introduction to evolution article that is more concise, so it might actually be okay to have a larger, more complex lead in this article. Though, it should not contain any fluff—notably paragraph 6, which to be honest, is the worst part. It gives information that isn’t even discussed in the article. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 00:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User: Azcolvin429.... we should look back on RfC about the lead. Things like "More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct" were added after many participants in an RfC though it was prudent.--Moxy (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From a purely editorial point of view (I'm not a biologist), I would say there's an awful lot of detail in the lead which simply doesn't need to be there. It just doesn't need examples, detailed caveats, discussions of which estimate is right. So the penultimate para could easily be reduced to just first clause - none of the other details matter in the slightest for an intro.
Likewise the second, para: who cares at this point in the article exactly which fossils were found in which rock strata, it's just the date that matters. The 2nd para should read:
"The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years. The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago, More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[13] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million." --Pfold (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that almost all the examples given in the lead aren't necessary—most especially those that are citing primary research. The statement about biogenic graphite, for example, does not belong. The LUCA part should go. Most of para 6 should go. Also, in an effort to not mass delete, maybe the details and examples can be incorporated into the body. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second last paragraph which you are discussing is indeed basically irrelevant to the lead of this article. The old lead above has one sentence (last sentence of the second last paragraph. However, it is currently perhaps the biggest paragraph. Surely even in the body of the article this would be information mainly for another article, so can we for example switch back to a single sentence on that particular point? Personally I think it just encourages the public misunderstanding about "evolution" being a theory about the beginnings of life, which it is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in the shorter, revised version, there should be at least a sentence or two summarizing the Applications and Social and cultural responses sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something like, "Evolution has been the subject of various cultural phenomenon with differing social implications. Evolution finds overwhelming support amongst scientists[ref]; however, it has not been widely accepted by the general public.[ref]" I personally would limit the discussion to a general explanation, avoiding terms like creationism, intelligent design, eugenics, Lamarckism, etc. as they give undue weight and really have nothing to do with the science of evolution. Further, the section is small and is abundant with links to guide readers to the appropriate articles relating to the controversy. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is only a conversation starter but I'll give a direct opinion. I find the first sentence very vague, arguably meaningless (because it could describe almost anything), and the second one gives a misleading impression about "the general public". You mean in America I guess? But even there you have the "sure microevolution exists" argument being very popular.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a conversation starter. I agree it is vague. I am simply brainstorming the best way to include the social-cultural aspect without giving too much detail and excluding anything about creationism. And yes, that would focus mostly on the American public. Though globally, we don't have the data. Somehow a statement needs to indicate that general perceptions of evolution do not equate with the scientific perceptions, as numerous studies have shown. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 04:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should make the article focus on the American public and its problems with Darwin, which are connected to America's cultural/political polarization generally, and hard to even understand outside of that context. FWIW there are already dozens, maybe hundreds of WP articles which are focused on subjects connected to evolution and those culture wars. But this article at least, surely, may focus unashamedly on the non-political subject evolution and not American cultural conflicts? If we put that aspect aside and focus on your first sentence, there was for example a sentence closing the short old version posted above. Does that not achieve a similar aim?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article length increased since it achieved FA status, wouldn't you expect the lead to expand as well? MOS says 4 paragraphs, but it's "not an absolute rule" (especially if it affects FA status). As long as it accurately describes the whole article, the length of the lead doesn't matter. Look at other FA articles like DNA, Virus, Bacteria and Metabolism 2601:405:4300:DB28:D529:3EA8:C597:4FF6 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length is clearly not the main concern, but focus. And indeed "accretion" is simply a common problem on WP leads, whereby lots of little additions are made over time by editors who think of things they find interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really need to trim report spam in the lead..looks and reads horible and is sourced badly for a lead. When was this grade school stuff added sourced to news papers ?--Moxy (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Evolustion is still just a theory and nowhere in the title or opening paragraph is it labeled as such. It is a belief and a theory. 68.44.148.212 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 not done please read the format for this type of request at the link marked "edit request" above. Edaham (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can also check the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution =/= theory of evolution

(Biological) Evolution itself and the theory of evolution are different things. These two titles should not be redirected to each other. Ruhubelent (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Evolutionary biology and Evolution as fact and theory.--Moxy (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are exactly the same thing. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I can see the distinction that the theory of gravity is distinct from a bowl of petunias plummeting through the atmosphere, but from the practical standpoint of writing an encyclopedia we cannot truly describe the Thing-in-itself but only science's perception of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How wrong you are! We observed gravity as a phenomenon, then Newton gave us a theory, then Einstein gave us a better theory, and I think there is more to come. Most phenomena lead to multiple developing and competing theories (or Hypotheses to be exact). Lindosland (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...Did you actually read my post beyond looking for something to argue about? I'm having trouble believing you did even that much. I pointed out the distinction between phenomenon and Noumenon as you did, but noted that all we can share with others is phenomenon. This is one of the few things that empiricists and Kantian idealists can agree on. Even if we were to try to describe gravity-in-itself or evolution-in-itself, we would only be sharing our own original hypotheses about them. Since we don't do that, all we can do is share the academic consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are different things, and have made the point here long ago, along with others, only to be rejected. Evolution is the phenomenon, which was postulated to exist by many people, as per the history section, throughout the ages, though they had no theory for it. Herbert Spencer for example had an all-encompassing view of evolution which he wrote in his essay 'The Development Hypothesis' in 1952 - BEFORE Darwin's publication - and yet he used the word evolution! How could he do that if evolution is Darwinian evolution?! There is no such thing as THE theory of evolution. To launch into what is in fact Neo Darwinian theory as per the Modern Synthesis, as if it were fact, without even naming it properly as one theory, is quite wrong. Current thinking among experts, (and I consider myself an expert in the field), is that the Modern Synthesis is wrong. Even Nature has published an editorial saying that, and talk of genes and gene pool changes is being superceded by the complexities of gene expression, promoter regions, enhancers, small RNAs, epigenetics, and much more! THE theory of evolution, as launched into here, is as good as dead, and should be consigned to the 'Modern Synthesis' page as a bit of history. This page should list the many theories, from Lamarck to Hoyle's pangenesis, to Darwin's ACTUAL hypothesis (his word he insisted - he didn't have a 'theory') of pangenesis, gemmules and inheritance of change as per Lamarck. Lindosland (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diverse hypotheses for evolution did eventually coalesce into the theory mostly agreed upon by mainstream academia after experimental verification from multiple parties. This theory undergoes continual refinement, but to act like there isn't "the" theory for either because of this is to miss the point of theories entirely. If you want to split hairs and focus on different hypotheses that lead to the theory, that would be History of evolutionary thought.
You're no more a biologist than anyone else here. Your self-proclaimed expertise (even if it was legitimate) is irrelevant, noone here cares about it, we will ignore it. Unless and until tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic describe Modern Synthesis as "good as dead," you are advocating a WP:FRINGE position, to which discretionary sanctions do apply. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh! I didn't say I'm a biologist I said 'I consider myself ....' simply to indicate that I am no casual commentator (and I am not), knowing from long experience that this is a 'difficult' page. I came here to lend support to another editor's statement, not to justify an edit. I wouldn't dare edit this page without a lot of conversation first - I've been editing for 16 years and I do not think that I have to back up everything I say in discussion with citations, nor do I think it is for you to tell me unequivocally on the talk page that my position is FRINGE, or Pseudoscience! We surely do that in relation to proposed or actual edits! If I were proposing edits I would find the relevant Nature editorial; I would back my claims with quotes from the ENCODE project, or from the many commentaries on its conclusions and how they change everything. If I were editing 'Modern Synthesis'I would quote books questioning the Modern Synthesis in detail; I would look up quotes from the scientists who are alleged to have reached 'consensus' over Huxley's 'Modern Synthesis' - several admitted to not understanding Fisher's paper, on which so much was claimed to rest, but looking up all this stuff is hard work, and I would only do it if I were trying to get edits accepted. I might also quote here articles about Wikipedia, and the very real problems it faces despite it's huge success, especially concerning 'ownership' of certain pages by self-appointed guardians of what they are sure is the mainstream position. I believe even Jimmy Wales has admitted to real problems, and I seem to remember discussions about schemes to overcome this problem. This page, we all know, is one of the biggest and hardest topics to assess, and many many papers and books have been published since 2001 and the genome breakthroughs that cast doubt on the outdated 'textbook' material that this page tends to support. This page I think is one such 'heavily guarded' page, but I'm not here to attack anyone, or prove it or argue, just, as I said, to add my support to an alternative opinion in the hope that others might feel less intimidated. Lindosland (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&oldid=847096208"