Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Introduction_to_evolution/Archive_1

This is an archive of past discussions about Introduction to evolution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This archive covers December 2006

I obviously disagree strenuously with the tag that has been placed on this article to move this to evolution. This guy is some template happy character it seems. I complained on his talk page but I have obtained no reply.--Filll 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see little to salvage in the article as it now stands.GetAgrippa 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please edit away to your heart's content. Let's make this accurate but still accessible, if possible.--Filll 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• We need pictures here. Something simple please and not too frightening.
• I would like to change the blue information box at the top of the article to a vertical blue information box down the right hand side of the article if possible--Filll 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to put

in this article but it did not work properly for some reason.--Filll 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just redone the opening, to start with a brief statement of the theory (largely cut and pasted from an earlier version). I think this is a good idea, even though the essential points are restated in the vertical box at the right. The bullet list can develop into a slightly longer and fuller version, while perhaps the box can be shortened further - two different ways of conveying the essential facts, for people with different ways of absorbing information. Also - I moved the stuff about wings down to join the hands because (a) it is another example of adaptive radiation and (b) I don't think it's a good idea to jump straight into a specific example like that, which perhaps gives too much of an impression that this is all that evolution is about. Maybe now a good idea to delete either the hands or the wings and leave just one example. Snalwibma 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that WAS 4.250 has simply reverted my changes without discussion. OK - some of it is wrong. But what about the principle? I still feel the present opening is quite inadequate, jumping straight into a specific example (which is in effect made redundant lower down the page) without setting out the basic idea. Snalwibma 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article requires complete revision, knee-jerk reversal at this stage are not productive. We almost need to put a disclaimer across the top "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". Try you edits again. This can work if we think in terms of informative, accurate, yet minimize the enormous amount of supporting details that are problematic in the Main article. Perhaps first you could outline the major topics for the article that are relevant to understanding evolution. Then discussion over the outline could follow. Then the actually text can be composed, with readability in mind. Don't throw in the towel .... yet! --Random Replicator 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even the English on this version is stilted, because in Simple Wikipedia we are encouraged to write somewhat stilted English to try to aim for an article which only uses about 850 words of Basic English. However, for Wikipedia itself I think we can at least make sure the English is readable, but still keep it simple with less technical terms.--Filll 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at what Snalwibma had done. I think it was a distinct improvement over this. I think rather than just revert mindlessly, we should edit the material we have here. It needs to grow organically. If some of what was added was not exactly correct, then it needs to be edited, not reverted!!--Filll 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it off my watchlist and let you guys proceed as you see fit. WAS 4.250 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's revert this to Snalwimba's version and let it evolve in a hopefully constructive direction.--Filll 15:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like to critique more than write.... but would this be a suitable start as an intro? --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Its hard to encapsulate Evolution in a short, readable, intro!!!! So be kind.

In a general way, evolution is described as the changes that have transformed life from its earliest origins into the diverse forms of life represented today. More specifically, the Scientific Theory of Evolution states that all living things share, at some point in their evolutionary history, a common ancestor. Evolution depicts life as a tree, with many branches arising from a single trunk. The tips of the branches represent present day life forms. Each fork in the branch represents ancestors common to all lines arising after the split.

                     Insert Image of Tree Here!!!!

The idea of common ancestry has its roots in the Darwinian Revolution. Charles Darwin, famous for his theory of natural selection, saw unity in life, with all living things related or descending from a common ancestor. Darwin describes these events as “descent with modification”. Darwin based his ideas of common ancestry on the principals of natural selection.

Natural Selection::::::::::::::::::::::::::

All common knowledge, so citations not required. Not familar with the rules and lack the skills to actually edit the article itself ... so this as far as I know to go with it.

Readability score of 46 or 10th grade level. --Random Replicator 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Fantastic.--Filll 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick look gave these. I hope there are better ones but this is all i could find for now. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Those look good to me. To brighten it up a bit so it is not to dreary looking.--Filll 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping we could insert a evolutionary tree after discusion on the branches of life... there is one in the wiki photovault in which the copyright is expired. Link-> [1]

I have no clue how to insert or resize but if someone wants to try to insert it if appropriate. --Random Replicator 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a try. I am not sure it is perfect but it is a start. Someone who is more expert or more patient than me can adjust it, resize it, etc.--Filll 20:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You could try and make it smaller but with the blue box on the right it will be hard to fit it in without everything getting cramped. Another possible location is in the montage, i have placed one in there for you to compare with the one at the top. Obviously this montage needs a good legend to link it with the text. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the picture at the top; as someone said "we need to break up the text to reduce the intimidation factor." The lead in sections seems to be coming together nicely. Its a start. I would like to see the next section 'simplify' the tie in between Darwin and modern genetics. Maybe Population genetics could be the next subheading, with a summary of Hardy-Weinberg principles? I think the key here seems to be minimize examples and details and not feel a need to defend or define every sentence/word. Also compact, concise sentences.The section on convergent and co-evolution was in the original transfered entry. It is just hanging there at the moment. Hopefully, it will eventually have a tie in to the section. I also recommend staying away from Creationist / Evolution debate. Refer all challengers to the main page ... they can fight it out there. That said ... should we continue or is this too redundant or perhaps distracting from the main article? I hate to invest the time; only to find the community at large thinks it absurd. --Random Replicator 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To correlate with the main article, Modern Synthesis might be a better heading than population genetics. I read the main page on M/S and it is Titanic; an excellent section to condense here. Obviously this is a support document so it should perhaps correlate to the main page. --Random Replicator 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am only a mathematical physicist but I think you are doing a fantastic job here. This looks great to me ! Of course, do not take my word for it since in this field, I am sort of out my main area !--Filll 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any policy on having less technical introductions on subects. Has this been done before? JoshuaZ 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has been done on special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics so far. So if physics can do it, so can biology I think. --Filll 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What has happened to the numbers in the list of five principles of natural selection? The picture of the tree gets in the way and deletes the numbering of the list. My knowledge of wiki markup and html has been stretched to the limit (doesn't take much of a stretch) trying to restore it. Someone must know how to do it! Snalwibma 08:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now. How does it look now? What browser are you using? --Filll 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no numbers, just the slashes, using MS Explorer with 21" wide screen. --Random Replicator 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll ... do you see numbers? --Random Replicator 14:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WinME, IE6, 19" screen, wikipedia "cologne blue" and default skins - I see dashes for 1-4, then, just below the picture, "5. - Over time ...". Snalwibma 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no skills in this area ... I just figured out how to do an embedded link to another reference ... I'm pretty excited about that thou!--Random Replicator 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see all 5 points easily. We might need an expert here.--Filll 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a spelling error. I also did not want to use the word evolve to explain evolution in a sort of circular argument.--Filll 14:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll or anyone with skills ... can you set up the following Sub topics directly under the intro section (above the convergent stuff).

Modern Synthesis / Population Genetics

Evidence For Evolution

 Subheadings   Fossil Record
               Comparative Anatomy
               Artificial Selection
               Molecular Biology

General References on Evolution

That can serve as a loose template for information to follow ...

Also, (all) please kep editng for errers and improvemments, at precent there seems to be about 4 of us with at lest some enterest in puting this togethar.--Random Replicator 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. --Random Replicator 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link the article of evidence of evolution, but I don't think a main article link is totally appropriate. I think a short intro in the evidence section would be nice, instead of just diving into the fossils section, and this would also be a good spot for the link. GSlicer 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone attached to the bird flu example... to me it is just hanging there as an after thought. Part of the challenge of reading the "main article is the supporting details that break the flow of the basic information. Examples in this one (perhaps) should be few and only because they are necessary to grasp the concept.?.? --Random Replicator 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff like the bird flu example come from the Simple article. Anything that makes no sense, remove it.--Filll 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted it. Still needs a closure sentence, I hate to end the intro passage with a list. --Random Replicator 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Six Coronas for the head, Vikiden for the back ... Aerosmith blaring Honkin Your Bobo ... and I came out with a readability score of 44.2 10th grade level. Feel free to edit without apologies or comment. Filll don't abandon me brother .... if this section is too complicated we can fix it. You may be high .. You may be low ... You may be rich child ... you may be poor ... but when the lord gets ready .... you gotta move.... Refilling the cooler and off to Evidence section.--Random Replicator 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

About an hour later ... and still Honkin the Bobo ... got beer on my keyboard ... but there is no stopping me now ...where is my Brit brother, not out Christmas shopping are you .... Brits don't do christmas do you???? Fossil evidence reads at 11th grade ... crap the beer is having a reverse effect ... its making me smarter. Soon I'll be cranking out a legal document. --Random Replicator 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Random. Another Brit brother here... I'm following along behind you doing a copy-edit! Please revert if I get it wrong, or oversimplify, or confuse the issue (though it might be useful to discuss rather than simply revert). I have just had a go at the final paragraph of the introduction, and the first of the pop gen section. Before I go any further, what do you think? (or what does anyone else think?) I feel the Hardy-Weinberg stuff might benefit from being reduced a bit (e.g. do Hardy and Weinberg need to be mentioned four times? I suspect not). Snalwibma 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit away ... especially the morphology section .... Im up to 12th gradeon that one. --Random Replicator 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Never fear, I am right here keeping an eye on things. The figure now has a caption. You can modify the caption to suit yourelf however.--Filll 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am confident in this group, in fact certain that your skills are greater than mine so edit to improve, especially bad grammar, clarity and accuracy. We all seem to be in agreement that simple is better. I seem to be stuggling with that part as we move throught the article. --Random Replicator 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried moving the figure of the skeletal structures. It did not turn out as well as I would like. I tried to break the figure up but I was not able to yet. Comments?--Filll 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Put it back at the bottom... perhaps we can find a picture of the forelimbs of whales humans etc....

We could also use an picture of some varaitions in domestic animals something that is strikely different yet same species ... maybe some weird looking chickens are something. I really like our pictures ... they are important as evident from our school textbooks. People are turned off by long passages of text.--Random Replicator 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Snalwibma signing off for today... I have done a quick copy-edit on most of the existing text. I hope I haven't mangled anything too badly. I'll revisit tomorrow. I think my best role is definitely to edit what others have written, reather than to originate text. BTW - I still can't see the numbers of the first list of five, which is annoying. Strangely, using IE7 I can see them, through the tree picture, but in IE6 they are quite invisible. There just has to be a solution! Snalwibma 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Molecular evidence up for review. I think we should cite the last statement but not a clue how to do that. Here is the info for it. --Random Replicator 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 Monica Uddin, Derek E. Wildman, Guozhen Liu, Wenbo Xu, Robert M. Johnson, Patrick R. Hof, Gregory Kapatos, Lawrence I. Grossman,
 and Morris Goodman  Sister grouping of chimpanzees and humans as revealed by genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of brain gene expression 
 profiles  PNAS 2004 101: 2957-2962; published online before print as 10.1073/pnas.0308725100

Geez mister ...This is a nice rewrite .... way better than what I had. --Random Replicator 22:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin’s theory of natural selection laid the groundwork for evolutionary theory. However, it was the emergence of the field of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), that provided the missing information on how it works in practice. This combination of Darwin's theory and our current understanding of heredity led to the birth of population genetics.

I'm done for the night ... Like the way you did the pictures Filll; excellent formating. I hope the POV's stay on the main page and don't force us to expand in an effort to defend every other word. At least for now I'm liking the way it reads. --Random Replicator 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph in this section needs a bit of attention. I was going to go ahead and do it, but then I got cold feet and I thought I'd bounce it around here first. What I have in mind is (1) the text jumps into scary topics like nucleotides and sequencing too suddenly; (2) is this an opportunity to introduce the concepts of genotype and phenotype? I am thinking of something like this:

The field of molecular systematics focuses on the reconstruction of evolutionary relationships based on genetic similarities. Scientists have made great strides in analysing the chemical compounds (sequencing the nucleotides) that make up the genetic code. Since morphology (the phenotype) is an outward expression of that genetic code (the genotype), then an analysis of the genes themselves should provide an even clearer understanding of the relationships between species.

But is this too simple and/or inaccurate? Is my virtual alignment of morphology and phenotype acceptable? Snalwibma 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know but I would always aim for simpler if possible, especially in the introductory paragraph. Remember this is really supposed to be for like 9th graders or something. Maybe even younger and less educated than that. Think about for your grandmother (unless she has a Phd in biology of course).--08:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

duh... what's a ninth-grader? Means nothing to me in Yorkshire. I suppose I could always look it up somewhere! Snalwibma 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A ninth grader is a 14 year old child who is following the regular path in school, and is not particularly precocious. Someone who is excited about Harry Potter books.--Filll 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ie, in England, a Year 9. Someone not yet starting their GCSEs. Skittle 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK - I looked it up! And I have one of those at home, so I'll try out the text on her. Snalwibma 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A brilliant insertion, Fillllll! Apart from anything else, it takes the numbered list away from the tree and makes the numbers visible. Snalwibma 08:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence fragment that is the first stumbling block for me in the article:are random formation of sex cells and fertilization. It needs a bit of simplification and/or explanation.--Filll 10:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go - not great, I fear... At some stage (soon - maybe later today) I want to go through the whole thing myself and look critically at how each point is explained. Ninth-grade here we come! Snalwibma 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another sentence that needs explaining and simplification:However, the bases of such groupings are the ancestral relationships that link them.--Filll 11:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The images at the bottom illustrate (1) convergent evolution, (2) comparative anatomy (adaptive radiation) in forelimbs, (3) adaptive radiation in wings. The text relating to (1) and the specific mention of (3) have gone. Should they come back? Let's re-insert a bit about convergence and divergence. Is "Evolution in action" the best top-level heading? Or maybe just do this in an extended caption to the pictures. Snalwibma 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Either or both is fine with me. As long as it is simple to understand.--Filll 10:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we try this: Insert the pictures of the bones at bottom following this line in the morphology section: "A similarity in anatomical features as a result of shared ancestry is called homology." That may serve to break up the text some and it seems to tie in.

Convergent evolution can be a separate discussion, perhaps worked in in the morphology section as well. I'm still "chewing" on where at the moment; however contrasting the shark and dolphine is the perfect picture choice.

We could also use an example of the classic picture of mammalian forelimbs if such can be found.--Random Replicator 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the picture be broken apart? The leg bones from the dolphin / shark? --Random Replicator 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the pictures can probably be broken apart. I will try. --Filll 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you add a heading under evidence called "Co-evolution". Below molecular. We also need a New Section that deals with different perspectives on evolution as a whole Gradual vs. Punctuated Species vs. Gene level and of course at least a brief statement linking out to Id and creationism. I hate to title it using the words misconceptions and/or contraversy ... that is just begging for a fight. If you can think of something tactiful.--Random Replicator 15:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Break time for me .... hope you got my message on picture formating ... it was perfect when you embedded the mosiac in the morphology section. --Random Replicator 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the new sections there. They might need to have the titles changed slightly and moved. The pictures might need to be resized and moved slightly but they are a start. I can still try breaking them apart if you think it is worth trying.--Filll 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of other pictures that can be added at vestigial structure if you want.--Filll 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We definitely need to simplify a lot of what is there.--Filll 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

True because once we walk away ... it will gradually morph into something more complex. But as inspiration consider this section from the main page:

Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to sampling variance. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation. Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies will tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency. Thus, fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population due to chance alone. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequencies therefore might drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles present in one population could be absent in the other, or vice versa).

There is purpose in our maddness!!!

I will attack the new sections this afternoon. What do you think of a box with maybe 10 or so recommended readings. And a box dedicated to related topics within wikipedia?

Maybe we can drop the citation at the bottom on the gene comparisons humans vs. chimps. On grounds of Common knowledge. I would like all our references to be easily understood. The main article on evolution has a massed a huge number of super technical references at the bottom. We don't want to go there with this one. Evolution for dumbies!!! Right?

Also, Im paying minimal attention to bad grammar and spelling figuring you guys will correct my weirdness ... it saves me time not to agonize over every word ... especially since i type with two fingers!!!! I have scarificed pride for efficiency if thats ok. --Random Replicator 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will work on the grammar and wording as best I can but I am no expert of course. I do think that a box like you suggest would be nice. Something really basic. I think that a person reading our section on genetic drift etc would have a lot better chance at being able to tackle the corresponding section in the main article.--Filll 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

From Darwin's idea to Noah's flood, we have no pictures. We could use some however.--Filll 17:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Under Darwin's idea .... a picture of Darwin .... but not he same demonically possessed one they have on the main page please!--Random Replicator 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

lol .... beautiful --Random Replicator 17:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He produced the theory as a young man, so lets have a picture of him as a young man. Also Mendel is listed. Would it help to list the fact that Mendel was actually a monk? I am not sure about the picture of fertilization or the mice hanging out under the log. Any more pictures you would like?--Filll 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What sort of picture of DNA should we have? I found this animated one but I am not sure that it might be too slow loading and complicated--Filll

I loved it .... loaded fine for me. --Random Replicator 18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the mice? the shark and dolphin picture? Cuvier? Should we have watson and crick? Should we describe mendel as a monk?--Filll 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The pigeons are the reult of selective breeding, Darwin actually based much of his work "Origins" on his study of domestic breeds of pigeons, to my knowledge finches didn't even make it in the book --- just pigeons. Hence the pigeon choice ... plus it was colorful and pretty! Thus if we keep it it was meant to be in the artificle selection section.--Random Replicator 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For convergent evolution the shark and dolphin pictures need to be side by side for contrast. --Random Replicator 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We might need more of an expert to do this. I tried a little.--Filll 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Dobzhansky blue ... is because I copy/pasted his name? --Random Replicator 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why. I wanted to find a younger picture of him but the one we have here on Wikipedia looks so old.--Filll 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuvier is a dapper dandy indeed. a definite keeper. The goose bumps, good example... as a picture not sure if it is working for me because its not apparent what it is except in the enlarged version, and everyone knows what goose bumps are so its not all that informative informative --Random Replicator 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps are gone. I tried to put the dolphin and shark together but we might need an expert to help us do a better job.--Filll 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll ... I was trying to show how the theory of evolution is not dogmatic; without open the door for controversy ... did i even come close? Also wanted to introducr two major modern players Gould and Dawkins. But it may need lots of editing or if you think deletion. Had no clue how to do quotes. if you need information so we cite properly ... I'll do the foot (finger) work. --Random Replicator 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. You will not be able to avoid controversy no matter what you do, I am afraid. I am not sure the quotes look so good but I tried. I do not like the standard quote format on Wikipedia so I do my own version. I wish I had pictures of Gould and Dawkins when they were younger. Should we just go with older pictures?--Filll 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A picture of Hutton, Dawkins and Gould? Not the one with his mouth hanging open ... he looks stupid there. PS read your comment on th other discussion page ... wow ... went straight for the juggular didn't you! --Random Replicator 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We can go for pictures of course. I was looking at them. Which comment was bad? The regular evolution page or the evolution and creationism controversy page? I sometimes take the gloves off. I hope I do not hurt too many feelings.--Filll 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Create one more section "speciation" the most challenging to simplify Just below coevolution ... a complete separate section.... I'm using my lecture notes ... I guess im wondering if we need to go into all the different routes ... sympatric allopatric ... ect.. ALSO ... when do we get too long as an overall entry? I'm working on co-evolution now. --Random Replicator 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speciation exists now.

Well I will rely on you biological experts to decide when. This is not my own field. I just think it should be as simple as possible and reasonable.--~~

WOW you bolded the quote .... and i thought you were diplomatic?!!!!--Random Replicator 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I call a spade a spade. I get tired of creationists sometimes.--Filll 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I replaced his picture with a smiling picture. I hope that looks better. I wish I had one when he was younger. But the older picture will have to do until maybe a younger one shows up.--Filll 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm Down here now. Go with the old versions. Just not the one where DAwkins is hanging over the podium with his mouth open. AND the discussion where you slamed the intro for Evolution as being over the top. You even bulleted them 1) 2) 3) You hurt my feelings and I didn't even write it ...  :) --Random Replicator 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What old versions should we go with? I might have the wrong Dawkins picture. Oh I am sorry. I will change it. I think that biologists are smart and doing really great stuff. But they have to not be so elitist. Especially on such a very important subject like evolution in an encyclopedia article for the general public. I can remember reading the Selfish Gene as an undergraduate and being really excited that I thought I was starting to understand what was going on in biology. A biologist soon put me in my place and told me how stupid I was and how stupid the book the Selfish Gene was and how stupid Richard Dawkins was and how he was not really a biologist and how he had made no contribution whatsoever and how I was a moron for even reading it and being impressed. It really made me feel sort of sheepish and embarassed. I am not STUPID. I do have a PhD in mathematical physics from a major school and 3 masters in mathematics and physics. But biologists often look down their noses at people like me since we are not in their field and they can be pretty contemptuous. And when they do something that overlaps with my area of expertise, they usually do complete garbage and make the dumbest mistakes, but are very dismissive of me and the stuff from my area of expertise, as though it were of no value. Stuff like MRIs and all kinds of other technology that biologists use all the time they just take for granted and assume it is all nonsense done by morons who are too technical to be of any value. How many times I have heard, "We biologists are really smart because we can think since we biologists have not clogged our heads with all kinds of worthless technical material like mathematics and physics". Ugh. It makes me shudder. However, this kind of attitude is quite prevalent I know since I have encountered it so often, and it does not serve biologists well frankly. Just my two cents. But I have TREMENDOUS respect for evolutionary biologists since I think it is one of the biggest theories and most important theories that humans have produced ever in the history of science. We have not even begun to scratch the surface of the this area, I suspect.--Filll 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Touched a nerve did I! Well I'm no threat here ... they dismissed me in the evolution discussions as soon as I mentioned I was a mere Biology teacher. I don't claim to be a science guru, but I certainly know that the main article on evolution is way to titanic and cumbersome to be an effective encylopedic source of info. I would say that some of them are caught up in their own ego's but they would be rude I guess.

I would agree completely. It has to be useful for the average person, at least the average person with a bachelors degree in science. The present article is even a stretch for me, and that is a bit much to ask a 15 year old child or their parent to be able to absorb. At least in my opinion. That is why this article is so important.--Filll 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But anyway ....Could you remake Speciation as a separate heading ... not a subheading for evidence. Also and ant and acacia picture; maybe there is one where the ant is on one of the thorns. I'm going to hold off on writing the speciation section ... I need to recruit some help from my co-workers to decide how much is too much. Our librain from school sent me a list of recommended text on evolution for high school libraries. I going to do some background checks then post the info for you to format. I am disappointed that no one really responded to my request on the main page; actually very disappointed. Oh well --Random Replicator 01:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will see if I can find any more pictures. Do not worry we might very well be able to recruit some people yet. I will make a few more appeals and do some begging.--Filll 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As a long time watcher of the Evolution talk page, I was under the impression that the modern synthesis rejected any and all notions of microevolution, and that most people who comment on creatonism say that it is just a dishonest attempt by creationists like myself to distinguish evolution that we see from evolution that the modern synthesis proposes resulted in all of life on earth as we know it. I thought that people didn't even like to use the words "microevolution" and "macroevolution", since it was proposed that all evolution more or less results in the same end anyway, have I been reading this wrong the whole time? Homestarmy 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider from physics, I have to agree I also had this impression. I will have to defer on this to a real biologist I am afraid. I am just helping here.--Filll 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 12 hours into a brand new article .... re-read please ... is problem solved? Remember this is a simple introduction. Long verbous explanations should be avoided; however ,,, we do wish to be acurate. thanks --Random Replicator 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is, I was under the impression the term "microevolution" is never used to describe anything concerning evolution, simple or not. Homestarmy 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit more complicated than that and unfortunately many supporterts of evolution don't understand the actual history and usage of the terms. To make matters worse, not all biologists use the terms the same way (although they generally make clear how they are defining it in context). For example, the term has been sometimes used to be mean morphological changes large enough to show up in the fossil record. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html gives an ok description of the relevant issues. JoshuaZ 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So they are actually still used, just in ways that are often different, and I presume never the same as the creationist uses? Homestarmy 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Roughly speaking yes. (The creationist use them so many different ways it is possible that there is some overlap). JoshuaZ 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, plez critique this entry and determine if the usage of the term is accurate; if not suggestions for improvment would be appreciated.--Random Replicator 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about this: Hopefully inserting this in a general reference section will not be as challenging and time consuming as I think it is:

Some starter references for the average reader ... I shall show my bias by listig these! Maybe it will encourage others to add!

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: The blind watchmaker : why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design / Richard Dawkins ; with a new introduction. Published/Created: New York : Norton, 1996. ISBN: 0393315703

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: Climbing mount improbable / Richard Dawkins ; original drawings by Lalla Ward. Edition Information: 1st American ed. Published/Created: New York : Norton, 1996. ISBN: 0393039307

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: River out of eden : a Darwinian view of life / Richard Dawkins ; illustrations by Lalla Ward. Published/Created: New York, NY : Basic Books, c1995. ISBN: 0465016065

Personal Name: Dawkins, Richard, 1941-

Main Title: The selfish gene / Richard Dawkins. Edition Information: 30th anniversary ed. Published/Created: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN: 9780199291144

Personal Name: Gould, Stephen Jay.

Main Title: The panda’s thumb : more reflections in natural history / Stephen Jay Gould. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : Norton, c1980. ISBN: 0393013804

Personal Name: Gould, Stephen Jay.

Main Title: Dinosaur in a haystack : reflections in natural history / Stephen Jay Gould. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : Harmony Books, c1995. ISBN: 0517703939

Personal Name: Mayr, Ernst, 1904-

Main Title: What evolution is / Ernst Mayr. Published/Created: New York : Basic Books, c2001. ISBN: 0465044255 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I hacked together a crude list. The formatting needs work, but at least it is a start.--Filll 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Now formatted, up to a point. Maybe we need more non-Dawkins references (and possibly fewer by Dawkins)! Snalwibma 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is superb! Only three days after the page was first created, we have an intelligent, well-organized and very readable page giving the basic facts and providing useful links to other wikipedia articles for further information. Particular thanks to Filll and Random Replicator. It's not finished, but it's already really good. Just a couple of thoughts, hopes, etc.

1. I hope it doesn't grow and grow, and suffer from the sort of fact-stuffing that affects (infects?) so many otherwise excellent wikipedia articles. This is one article that really needs to be kept short and straightforward.
2. I still have trouble with the numbered list beside the picture! I will ask elsewhere and see if I can come up with a solution.
3. Very small thing - the juxtaposition of trout (formerly bass) in a pond and the gene pool... So does it mean that the pond that the fish are swimming in is their gene pool? Would an example that doesn't involve a pond be better? (!)

Snalwibma 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I also wonder about:

• a link or two to tutorials on genetics
• some elementary description of what is DNA, a nucleotide, a chromosome, a gene and similar concepts, which just confuse outsiders
• I sort of like the idea of highlighting the title "Nothing in biology makes sense..." but I will go along with the consensus.--Filll 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

my view on the "boldness of the statement" ... I like the in your face approach ... yet one of my criticism of the main article is the way it baits creationist into debate. So no vote either way here. --Random Replicator 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job with formating ... the scientist on the side ... very professional. --Random Replicator 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very grateful to have the assistance of these experts here. Obviously my skills on formatting figures still has a way to go yet! But I am watching what these guys are doing so I can learn to do it too!--Filll 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I managed to get the shark picture side-by-side with the picture of the dolphin, as someone wanted. Is that better than one above the other? Opinions?--Filll 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is your opinion about putting a link to the Simple Wikipedia article from this one, for those with even less facility with English, or who require an even more basic simplistic explanation?--Filll 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of wikipedia policy, but I'm not too keen on an explicit link within the article itself. How about including a simple (pun intended) simple:Evolution tag and leaving it at that? Snalwibma 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have the wrong terminology. That is what I mean of course.--Filll 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

simple

Evolution

Simple Wikipedia article on Evolution

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I say yes ... that was the basis of this article inception, to expand understanding to a wider audience. Link it and make in prominent.--Random Replicator 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've researched speciation and found as many different definitions for the word species as biology books in existence. Struggling with simplification on this one ... I used Mayr's but is so long... hate to free-lance my own thou. --Random Replicator 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had a nibble at it, and I have changed the title of the section, to "The concept of the species". But maybe your original title is better. On reflection, I realise I have lost sight of what this section is here for, and where it's headed! One day I must step back and take a look at the whole of the article! Snalwibma 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am struggling with this one, over simplification and the creationist swoop down like vultures on a dead carcass --Random Replicator 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speciation up but really needs a lot of work. --Random Replicator 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking ... one final section under our watch ... dealing with misconceptions . Not the creation vs. evolution debate, but addressing issues such as use and disuse. The idea that evolution leads to perfection or being goal driving. The misconception denoted by the ladder perspective ... chimps into humans; humans at the top of the dung heap. What's good today may suck tomorrow ... i.e. extinction is the norm. I don't even know what to title it.

Also, it is getting long. We will assume others may wish to add to its contents in time so maybe we should stop here; unless their is some pressing issue we missed to assist the average reader in understanding the general concepts of evolution. The reference list is a bit slanted, I'm still working on some text for that; but I was hoping others would contribute so it would truly be non-biased. Go Dawkins. If I don't see something soon, I am adding the God Delusion!!!

I was hoping we would have generated some excitement from those that contribute to the main article. I guess we just have to be grateful they even gave us a link.

One of my high school Biology classes reviewed it and were most impressed ... bunch of suck-ups no doubt. I had them first read the main article's definition of genetic drift then asked for a general explanation .... I got blank stares ... da? I think this gave them an appreciation of our efforts here.

We may wish to archieve this discussion page at some point. It has served more as an message board for editing with many tongue in cheek comments ... mostly mine. We shall provide them with a blank slate, a tabla rasa for intellectual debate untainted by our start up commentaries, which most wouldn't understand what we were saying anyway.

In the scheme of intellectual endeavors, I accept that this is small fish; however, I am very proud to be a part of it and have had the opportunity to work with such talented and insightful souls. In the real world, I have no doubt we would have made for good friends.--Random Replicator 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think the Doberman is thinking in that picture? Im guessing lunch. Speaking of pictures. The species section offers a lot of options. Fireflies, some type of diagram on adaptive radiation ...geez ... maybe a discussion on adaptive radiation ... as the beer comercials go ... "know when to say when" ... Engineering an Empire / China is on the history channel ... I am off to expand my horizens ... cheers! --Random Replicator 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS nice job cleaning up my mess in the species section!--Random Replicator 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap ... I missing the show ... but ... I don't entirely agree with the edit on "other perspectives". I still think we need to link out to the ID movement in some manner. A common topic in high school is the evolution - creationism - ID debate. Can we give our reader a portal to good Wiki references for all? --Random Replicator 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think we should put that in there. I do not know what to call that section.--Filll 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most or all the quotations in this article are only casually cited with an author or book name. For instance, the sentence "Darwin described these events as descent with modification" provides the reader with no proof that Darwin actually said this. Maybe some more formal citations are in order, if anybody is willing to find/verify the sources? I realize that this is only the introduction version of the evolution article. However, the article will appear more credible and be in less danger of deletion (if it even is still in danger at its current size) if it holds the dignity of full documentation. One of the last things a blossoming article needs is for somebody to smack a big banner at the top that condemns its lack of cited sources. --Barnaclese 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just the very earliest rough draft of this. It needs to be fleshed out a lot more of course. Please give us a hand and help out if you can. You are quite right about the citations of course.--Filll 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need loads of citations to back up every point. Please let's not let it get bogged down in the mire. It is an introduction for ninth grade, not a postgraduate-level dissertation. The emphasis is (and must remain) on accessibility and ease of reading. A text peppered with references looks offputting, and is harder to read. Perhaps best dispense with all that, and just preface the "Further reading" section with a note that full references can be found in the main Evolution article. I see absoultely nothing wrong with saying casually that "Darwin described this as descent with modification" and leaving the reader to go find the quote for him/herself. The "dignity of full documentation" is a two-edged sword. Snalwibma 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Birds have wings which are used for flight (Audubon, 1882). This factoid is now in the realm of common knowledge. Not to discredit this article, but within the field of Evolution every line in the article is common knowledge. Trust me … from my head to this page … defines common knowledge. We avoided the specific examples of studies to justify each line in an effort to increase readability and understanding. If you feel we can increase credibility by shot-gunning this thing with references, it can be done. But, other than the reference to gene relationship between chimps, humans and gorillas … I fail to see reason. --Random Replicator 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said, "full documentation". I'm not talking about facts. Mainly I'm calling for quotes to be referenced to a page number, or at least a book. It doesn't affect readability much to put a footnote number at the end of a quote. It certainly looks better than the alternative: "Darwin described this as descent with modification."^{[citation needed]} --Barnaclese 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well give us a hand then! --Filll 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean missing links in the "argument" of the article! A few things that I think could be given a bit of space:

• Survival of the fittest (Herbert Spencer) – maybe worth adding a little bit after the five points from Darwin, to explain that "survival of the fittest" is a metaphor for natural selection, and to define fitness.
• Heredity is particulate rather than blending (Mendel’s “atomic theory”) - I have added a bit on this, and given Mendel his own heading. Not sure if the heading's such a good idea. And perhaps the text needs a bit more expansion, to explain it better.
• A bit more on genes and how they work? Where does genetic variation come from? half the genes from each parent, dominant and recessive characters, mutations, etc.
• Some sort of summary. Maybe a series of FAQs? Is evolution a form of progress towards the ultimate "perfect" organism? Are humans at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree? Why are there so many different kinds of beetles? Maybe not such a good idea - an invitation to the creationists!

Snalwibma 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is getting pretty long. I would suggest an "introduction to genetics" article for the genetics part and a link. I did include a very short summary and a short note about the common phrase "survival of the fittest". I am not sure about an FAQ. I suggest that a separate article for both evolution and introduction to evolution and maybe even even the evolution-creationism controversy article that is in FAQ format might be appropriate. Some of these I put in the misconceptions section. The problem with the FAQ section is that it can get very very long. It is also as you say, an invitation to creationists to create literally hundreds of questions.--Filll 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I addressed some of the most common misconceptions I have heard in this section. It might be poorly written and it might be too long. What do you think?--Filll 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how accurate this is. I wanted to write something short and sweet. It is my understanding of evolution as an outsider.--Filll 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we want to be careful here, and in the misconceptions section, of straying too far from the WP:NPOV policy. It's beginning to look a little too much like a plea for a belief in evolution rather than a statement of the facts of evolution. Maybe better (more in accord with wiki policy, but also more confident and less open to counter-"argument") just to state the facts and not give too many hostages to creationist fortune. Snalwibma 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Which points would you remove or reword? --Filll 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the second-last "misconception". Text reads It is sometimes claimed that once a new "more advanced" species has evolved from a "lower" life form, the lower life form should no longer exist. Since lower life forms are observed, evolution must be false. Some state that these lower life forms should have evolved into something more advanced, and since they have not, evolution is not correct. These statements are wrong, and are the result of a misunderstanding of what evolution is. I'm not convinced that this needs to be included at all. You have already said at the top of the list that evolution does not mean advancement. In the light of that, this later point looks redundant. Maybe it's tying itself up in knots too much. Is it a "misconception" that really needs to be countered? I'd be inclined to delete it, and add something in (perhaps nearer the top of the list) about humans not being the pinnacle, and that evolution is an ongoing process which has not "led up to" us but is leading nowhere in particular. Snalwibma 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Whatever you guys think is best is fine with me. --Filll 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean humans aren't at the top of the dung heap? There are so many concepts that need to be addressed. Extinction. The fact evolution is not goal driven. Mutations are random / but not evolution. etc... Where do we stop. Alas, but we must ... are we will fall prey to our on criticisms. For those topics force you into deeper and deeper explanations.

On the issue of citations, brought up in previous post. Descent with Modification "Origins of Species" Chapter Six ...no clue what page because I was reading the electronic vesion. Should we follow through with citations footnoted then listed at the bottom as suggested. If so, what needs to be cited? I'll do the foot work. --Random Replicator 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

oh my ... maybe this one "In excess of 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support the theory of evolution." Numbers always need to be cited. --Random Replicator 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I know where that is from. It is really 99.84% i think. I was fudging it a bit. Sorry you caught me cheating by 0.06% !!! Do you want that reference ? it is from a survey of about 500,000 professional earth scientists and biologists. It should not be too hard to find. Or to find a better reference.--Filll 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I put a couple of notes and an outside link in to some genetic information. Again, I am not sure how useful or accurate these are.--Filll 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say enough, because I have enjoyed contributing. However, we may be there. The misconceptions read very well. We have opened a portal to pursue the controversy and still managed not to be "in your face" with the views. Excellent summary. Other than finding a more diverse selection of books on the topic and perhaps a list of web links, I say pop the champagne. I'm bowing out for the "experts" to morph it to perfection. --Random Replicator 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks fairly good to my untrained eyes. But we have not had many people check it out yet so I do not know what other reactions will be. I suspect some other topics might benefit from introductory articles. --Filll 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to Introduction to genetics and take a look. I cut and pasted some from this article. There is complaining at genetics and gene that they have an article that is too complicated and needs a simpler introduction etc. Same as at evolution. So I am trying to push them to try an introductory article as well. --Filll 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ahhhhh no rest for the weary --Random Replicator 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882.

Uniform Title: On the origin of species

Main Title: The illustrated Origin of species / by Charles Darwin ; abridged & introduced by Richard E. Leakey ; consultants, W.F. Bynum, J.A. Barrett. Published/Created: London : Faber and Faber, 1979. ISBN: 0571114776

Personal Name: Berra, Tim M., 1943-

Main Title: Evolution and the myth of creationism : a basic guide to the facts in the evolution debate / Tim M. Berra. Published/Created: Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, c1990. ISBN: 0804715483 (alk. paper)

Personal Name: Ridley, Matt.

Main Title: The red queen : sex and the evolution of human nature / Matt Ridley. Edition Information: 1st Perennial ed. Description: ix, 405 p. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 0060556579

Personal Name: Sagan, Carl, 1934-1996.

Main Title: Shadows of forgotten ancestors : a search for who we are / Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : Random House, c1992. ISBN: 0394534816 :

Personal Name: Gould, Stephen Jay.

Main Title: Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and the nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould. Edition Information: 1st ed. Published/Created: New York : W.W. Norton, c1989. ISBN: 0393027058 :

--Random Replicator 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is slowly getting fleshed out....--Filll 06:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection and biological evolution is not a process requiring that lifeforms become more "advanced", more intelligent, or more sophisticated.

from misconception section. Not sure how to reword it but it smells like bad English or something to me.--Filll 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, try this: Evolution, working through natural selection, is not a process requiring that lifeforms become more "advanced", more intelligent, or more sophisticated.

Now - should we add another misconception, something like The "survival of the fittest" does not mean blah blah blah. The phrase is a metaphor for the process of natural selection, and "fittest" in modern biology has a special meaning. It refers to biological fitness, a measure of an an organism's reproductive capability. Not sure (and nor am I sure what to say it doesn't mean!). It is an often-misquoted and misused phrase, and is perhaps worth devoting a bit of space to in the article. On the other hand, it's not a phrase used by modern biologists, and perhaps this isn't the way to deal with it. At present it appears in a footnote to "struggle to survive". Maybe that's the best way to deal with it. It could get a bit too technical, especially as modern biological "fitness" is presumably not what Spencer had in mind when he coined the phrase in 1864! Snalwibma 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok that sentence makes more sense now. I guess I have to ask, how do people misinterpret "fittest"? Whenever I have encountered the phrase "survival of the fittest", it strikes me that it is being used in the proper sense. I cannot remember encountering it when it was being misused.--Filll 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question, Filll. I think that a common perception would be that fitness refers to general physical fitness, i.e. strongest. Might is right. Social Darwinism. "Ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong" (that's a quote - I forget where from). An argument used to justify Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society", Reaganomics, even (at a bit of a stretch) the Holocaust. Also widely used in casual conversation about any sort of competitive social situation. When used in biology (which is rarely) "survival of the fittest" is probably used correctly, but in other contexts it's widely misused, and people think they are quoting Darwin(ism), or applying the principles of evolutionary theory, and furthermore they think that for the strong to devour the weak is therefore right! End of sermon... Probably none of that should go into the article! But maybe we could include a misconception-rebuttal which states what "survival of the fittest" is, and leaves out what it is not. Snalwibma 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a Dawkin's fan, fittest, is a function of the gene's probability of perpetuation. My students always see it as a tooth and claw battle. Sometimes fit just translates to pretty. When you perceive it at the gene level as opposed to organism, it makes more sense. Happy to see the framework is solid enough that it allows for such discussions as this. I really liked this line someone added: Therefore, evolution is an inevitable result of imperfectly copying, self-replicating machines reproducing over billions of years under the selection pressure of the environment.

Superb summary of the entire process. --Random Replicator 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS good luck on the main page edits (Intro)!

Is this phrase (from a poem I think) too old fashioned now to include? What do you think?--Filll 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like romantic poetry... did you get that out of a valentine card... just kidding ... I like the idea, why must we assume scientific articles must be devoid of good prose. Work it in!--Random Replicator 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I included it, where I think it is most appropriate. I put it in a footnote so it does not break up the text however.--Filll 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not convinced. Sorry, but I don't think "nature red in tooth and claw" has anything to do with evolution! If it does belong, maybe it would be best to link it footnote-wise to the Darwinian "struggle to survive", alongside "survival of the fittest". Snalwibma 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this phrase you can see that it was adopted by evolutionary biologists. It was written before the publication of Darwin's work. I am torn about it. But it is in a footnote. --Filll 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll accept that! (and eventually, some day, when I have time, I'll look it up...) "Survival of the fittest" also predates Origin of Species, of course. I wonder - are we making a collection of phrases that have been used to describe evolutionary processes and have entered the popular consciousness, and should we have a little section devoted to them? Or do they belong among the misconceptions? Unsure - but it strikes me that to examine phrases and sayings like these is perhaps quite a good way of getting at what evolution almost means, what it doesn't quite mean, and what it does mean. Snalwibma 18:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting approach you propose. Never seen it taught that way. Catch-all phrases that get embedded into the mass conciousness are often misleading. --Random Replicator 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one thing to recommend it. People are familiar with phrases like

• "survival of the fittest"
• "natural selection"
• "theory of evolution"
• "Nature red in tooth and claw" (well some people know that one anyway)

There might be some others. If you can connect the text with things people already "know" deep in their gut, they will have a much better chance of being accepted. The memes will have already been implanted. Now all we have to do is build upon the existing foundations!--Filll 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes etc to consider:

[A] curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. -- Jacques Monod (1910-1979) _On the Molecular Theory of Evolution_ (1974) (French Biochemist, Nobel Prize Medicine 1965)

Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. -- Francis Crick (British molecular biologist, 1916- ) quoted by Daniel C. Dennett in _Elbow Room_ (1984)

Evolution is a tinkerer. -- Francois Jacob (French biochemist 1920- )"Evolution and Tinkering" (1977)

A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg. -- Samuel Butler _Life and Habit_ (1877)

[Natural Selection] has not vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to be play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the *blind* watchmaker. - Richard Dawkins (English biologist,1941-)in The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." -- Ashley Montague

"People are DNA's way of making more DNA." - Edward O. Wilson, 1975

Q :Why did the chicken cross the road? Evolutionist: Pure chance. Evolutionist: Only the fittest chickens survive crossing the road. Creationist: God created the chicken on the other side of the road. There is no proof it ever was on this side.

Q: Why did the dinosaur cross the road? A: Chickens hadn't evolved yet.--Filll 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if they'll make it into this article, but some of these quotes are definitely going into my PowerPoint for my own lectures! E.O. doesn't leave us a shred of humanity ... my students are still trying to hang on to soul-mates and destiny ... they'll hate me for: "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." - Edward O. Wilson, 1975. lol I'm Ken Ham's worst nightmare in the classroom.--Random Replicator 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One could envision a page on just evolution quotes. I hope these gave you a chuckle at least. --Filll 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In neurobiology lecture today, the professor mentioned that much of the data we were seeing was culled from studies of leeches. He said, "Now, a lot of you may think leeches are nasty creatures. The people working with these creatures are quite fond of them, however. It is also reported that the leeches often become attached to the researchers."

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin

Life is a sexually transmitted disease

Thesaurus: ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Why did chicken cross the road? Stephen Jay Gould: It is possible that there is a sociobiological explanation for it, but we have been deluged in recent years with sociobiological stories despite the fact that we have little direct evidence about the genetics of behaviour, and we do not know how to obtain it for the specific behaviours that figure most prominently in sociobiological speculation.

I have a hunch that [] the unknown sequences of DNA [will decode into] copyright notices and patent protections. -- Donald E. Knuth

--Filll 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

more still:

• Evolution is a FACT God is just a theory

• Christian Fundamentalists Are Proof That Evolution Does Not Exist

• Lord save me from your followers!

• The last time religion ran the world, It was called the Dark Ages

• If you believe you can tell me what to think I believe I can tell you where to go

• [2]

• We have the fossils. We win.

• Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.

Not all appropriate of course.--Filll 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the mule and firefly picture there. Not sure if they add very much but they do make it more colorful.--Filll 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: is this section even necessary in this introduction? I'm not sure it belongs here. I mean, it is obvious people object to it, but is it really necessary to include in this? It certainly belongs in the main article, but to the person learning about it I don't think it is necessary. Also, ID proponents universally claim it is God who did their ID, so including extraterrestrials in that list is misleading. Titanium Dragon 06:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not sure it is necessary. However, my co-authors thought it should at least be mentioned. There is controversy so to ignore it or at least not give a pointer to where a person can learn more about it is maybe not good. I suspect it might be best to acknowledge that it exists. And it is true that ID proponents in most cases would prefer God as the intelligent designer, but in their text books and court arguments they always bring up extraterrestrials. It is part of their "wedge strategy" to make it more palatable. Of course the Raelians and panspermians etc would favor an extra terrestrial origin or maybe even ID as well. But they are not the ones with the money behind them and the influence.--Filll 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too upset if the section vanished - but on balance I think it should be there. Not to include at least a brief mention of alternative views would arguably be disingenuous. However inaccurate they may be, they are quite widespread, or at least well publicised, and may well be in the reader's mind. Your addition of the reference to the controversy article firmly says "go elsewhere if you want to know more about this sort of nonsense", which is just perfect. I finally cracked and removed the Tennyson quote. Sorry - we can put it back if you like, but I really can't see what it adds, especially at this point in the article. I still wonder whether maybe a secton on "Metaphors for evolution" would be appropriate. Snalwibma 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was written with two goals in mind. The first,to provide a somewhat more conprehensible description of the basic concepts behind evolution. I think it does so rather well. Second, to provide a start point or "portal" to other more in-depth issues surrounding the general topic of evolution. It is in this light that we include a mere mention of the alternative views. It would be a weakness indeed if we got wrapped up in elaborating on the creationist / ID perspective. Its just a link for those exploring the controversy ... nothing more. As for the Raelians, two possibilities here; a) it is an effort to etablish that ID's do not claim a specific deity to avoid church/state issues or .... .... (lol) ..... b) thats just brother Filll rubbing their noses in it. Only he knows for sure. But I suspect a little of both! --Random Replicator 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about linking from the overview template to the applicable sections in the article? Rfrisbie^talk 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I do not understand. How is this different than the table of contents? I am not sure what it means and how it would be different. Not saying it would not be useful. I just don't understand it.--Filll 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My thought exactly. In fact, that template seems to beg the question of why it's there at all. If it's acting just like the TOC, then it's redundant. If not, then it should link to applicable sections. I've never seen a sidebar template that didn't assist navigation. It's very "unwikish" how it stands now. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know what you mean. You mean our evolution summary infobox. Yes we could link that to sections. That is a good idea. The info box was originally proposed at evolution itself but it didn't look great there, and no one seemed to want it bad enough, so I just grabbed it and used it here. --Filll 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, if I had said what I meant! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the Summary Box a summary of the article or a summary of evolution? I am contemplating the prior post on this issue. And what does that bell mean ... and why are people walking into my class ... dang it.--Random Replicator 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I contemplated this for a while. I finally decided that this would be difficult to do. It might even require a rewriting of the article, which I would not encourage. It is not really a summary for the article, or at least not meant to be. It is supposed to be a summary of evolution. I think the goal is to try to present evolution in several different simple ways. Sometimes one presentation will not resonate with a reader but another will. Sometimes by getting the same information in several different forms or different wording, more of it sinks in and nuances become clearer.--Filll 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we possibly remove this image ("ADN animation.gif"), or replace the thumbnail with a non-animating version? It's distracting whilst you're trying to read the molecular biology section. GSlicer 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is up to my coauthors. But we would probably consider it.--Filll 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the world where everyone is ADD, perhaps it should go.I don't feel strongly either way. I like the idea of a DNA picture thou, if we can find a suitable substitute... cut /paste. --Random Replicator 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit distracting, and I'd be very happy to see it replaced by (for example) Image:DNA Overview.png (which seems to be one of the most widely used images in wikipedia!). Snalwibma 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I tried it. Let's see how it goes.--Filll 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Added more links to See Also section. Spent way too much time fighting with the table format. Had it all set, then realized it wasn't balanced. ahhhhh. I liked the gif. file better; my students actually liked it, but there is merit to the distraction aspect.--Random Replicator 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How linked, within the Wiki world are we... I guess you can't get stats on number of hits per page? --Random Replicator 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question.--Filll 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If one side gets an Intro, why not the other? (I would love to edit alot of this silly notion of the Evolution 'theory' and how alot of has been proven wrong, but I don't want to offend someone's state-religion.) >_> Keero 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course you could write an introduction to creationism (as long as the people at the regular creationism article agreed it was not a fork of course). I have a friend or two that are creationists and would probably be good to recruit to help. I might even help a bit if you wanted.--Filll 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this article was that it was needed because it was too hard to introduce people to Evolution in the main Evolution article :/. Homestarmy 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true . It was needed because the main page is unreadable basically.--Filll 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already been taught in a majority of schools since the 60's , why would it need an intro? (Or someone could dumb down the Evolution page) :P Keero 18:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well in some countries it is illegal to teach it. And many people still do not understand it very well at all. I for example never studied it in school. I also want them to "dumb down" the evolution page but I am not having much success so far.--Filll 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, I was trying to just do my part in keeping Wiki non-biased, but that'll never happen. No biggie, edit on Comrades! *O_o) Keero 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is it won't stop changing and getting more and more complicated, the Evolutionary synthesis of the 60's isn't the same as it is today. (Back then, it was probably much more easier to dismiss I figure, its waaaay too complicated nowadays, just look at the size of the Talk.origins archive....) Homestarmy 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationists have been trying to "dismiss" evolution for about 150 years. Part of the problem is that they do not understand what it is. They do not understand what science is. They do not understand their own religion or its history. They just get up on their hind legs and start to holler. The arguments they are trying to use now are the same ones used decades or even centuries ago and dismissed then as well.--Filll 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the problem with Science is that it is complex; a person can spend an entire lifetime studying one small component of evolution theory alone. As the body of scientific knowledge gains depth, people in general or intimidated or just turned off by it. Most will latch on to simple ideas as oposed to expending the effort to grasp higher level concepts. Ken Ham has made a living off of quick easily grasped explanations to the origins of life. His explanation for fossils via Noah's Flood is the perfect example. Rain ... creatures die ... covered with mud ... fossils. Of course he is completely wrong; but he achieves his goal of winning converts by keeping his explanations simple. Have you ever tried to explain natural selection to someone who knows nothing about the DNA molecule. IT is difficult if not pointless. I guess my point is; this is an attempt to tone down the scientific jargon, in an effort to reach the average reader. So my question to you Keero, is the article on Creationism so complex that it too needs an introduction? If so... then by all means gather a concensus among the contributors to that page and write one. Or complain about bias writing in an article about evolution that explains evolution. I'll be happy to join Filll in assisting you in the writing of a Creationist intro --Random Replicator 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went to creationism. The first paragraph is great. Then it goes downhill a bit in the next few paragraphs. I think that a case could be made to try to clean up the lead there. If that fails and if the rest of the document is deemed too technical, then an introduction might be in order if the authors there permit it. It does seem to include a lot of detail in the body of the article.--Filll 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The table looks dumb ... after spending a godly amount of time on it. I don't know how to make two or perhaps three bulleted columns. If anyone with skills can clean up my mess. --Random Replicator 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked pretty good. I was going to congratulate you. I would use the method that evolution used to organize their links instead probably. I had been thinking about it and you beat me to it.--Filll 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just did it, although too lazy to get them in order right now. Hope you like the change. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now in alphabetical order. Looks good, I think. Snalwibma 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks good.--Filll 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to back up this assertion is to an article in which a scientist says this. Was the scientist in charge of the poll? I think better references exist. However, I don't have them at hand. Meanwhile, the source for the 99.9% figure is less than adequate. 74.33.26.71 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

This is quote from a scientist who is a specialist in creationism and evolution issues and has testified repeatedly on this issue as an expert witness. However, I think a separate article documenting the dominance of the evolutionary viewpoint might be called for.--Filll 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about lies-to-children, upon reading this text. For example, this sort of wording would be deemed unacceptable in the main article on evolution:

The implication from such a find is that modern reptiles and birds arose from a common ancestor.

Obviously, this article hasn't been scrutinised a lot yet. Nevertheless, if we want to avoid accusations of writing from a point of view, we should take a good hard look at the current text. For example:

Cuvier noted that in sedimentary rock each layer was defined by a specific group of fossils.

should surely become something more like

Cuvier noted that in sedimentary rock each layer could be defined by a specific group of fossils.

Also, each of us should be able to find fault with the following quote:

Current species also provide evidence, with the many genetic and anatomical similarities that exist between them, and any vestigial structures they carry. These structures are useless to the current life form that carries them, but were important to species before them.

At the very least, we should acknowledge that this text is still very much a work in progress. -- Ec5618 16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely inprogress. We need people to suggest alternatives that are both accessible and reasonably accurate. I am not a biologist, so in a lot of these matters I have to bow to biologists.--Filll 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We laid the foundation, if anyone sees fit to improve on the accuracy, by all means climb aboard. However, it would be in the best interest of the article to remove/modify statements that are misleading as opposed to providing endless explanations as to why it may or may not be accurate. This is a general introduction; it is widely held that birds and reptiles have common ancestory. I guess I assumed that Archeopteryx was a piece of evidence that supported this notion. Certainly it is a widely used example; that implies common ancestory ... If the line read that birds descended from Archeopteryx ... then removal would be required. However, as I stated, just providing a foundation, improve at will ... I actually expected an onslaught of criticism! In fact, am somewhat disappointed at the lack of interest from our peers. --Random Replicator 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I also am somewhat surprised that more people have not commented or been interested in this article. But this might be only temporary. We will have to see what happens in the future. I think we can pat ourselves on the back for having broken the ice here and at least started this process. I hope eventually this article will mature, and the main article will have accessible introductory sections as well. At least it is far more helpful for the average person, and I am proud of that. When there are CDs produced in the future for educational purposes etc, we might even expect this explanation to be included, instead of the advanced regular article. --Filll 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)