Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 9

Drift

The original FA version was restored; since that time there were some significant edits to the introduction. The emphasis on Genetic Drift as a contributing factor was a big improvement. However, drift is only discussed in the introduction. There was never a companion section dedicated to the topic. It would be nice to see the effects of drift elaborated within the body of the paper. If such an effort was made, then it may resolve the issue that was the catalyst for the demotion. Prose, citation format etc. have already been highly scrutinized - an FA attempt might go rather smoothly... relatively speaking.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added some information to the sources of variation section. It is by no means complete, but it is a start for future edits. I have included basic principles and some information on the Hardy-Weinberg theory. If you or anyone has any suggestions for more part (I already have the population bottleneck and Founder effect in my mind, I'm just not sure where the appropriate place to add them is) let me know. I am open to any and all suggestions, critical opinions, demoralizing comments, etc. Any and all feedback helps with the editing. Thank you.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good start! Since this is an "introduction to..." article perhaps the language can be simplified and an example or two added.Sjö (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, excellent start. Peer review can be intense on evolution topics - this can actually work to your advantage since the rubric includes points for consensus building. Review the prior history of the article's FA path Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution - I would hope that it goes more smoothly this time!--JimmyButler (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the following problems I do not agree that this is a good addition to the article:

Through the process of genetic drift, populations may also encounter differences in allelic frequencies. "encounter"? "also differences"? I think the intention is to say that drift is an additional cause of frequency change, which is indeed correct. The context may give the impression that drift is a source of variation, that is the head line of this paragraph. But the opposite is the case: Drift never introduces novelty but now and then reduces variation, when an allele drifts to extinction.

Genetic drift is caused by random sampling of alleles. "random sampling" is a too difficult concept to base the explanation on in an introductory article.

In any offspring, the alleles present are samples of the parents' alleles, this sounds to me as one case, one offspring, at a time carrying a sample of its parents alleles. But the core of this concept is that the new generation of alleles is a sample of the whole populations alleles in the previous generation.

and chance plays a role in whether an individual survives to reproduce. This and the previous step cover the full circle of reproduction. Good! But sampling seems to be mentioned as part of only the first step. The sampling occurs (once?) in the full circle.

The allelic frequency of a population is the ratio of the copies of one specific gene that share the same form. A ratio has two parts. One part is the number of copies of the allele in question. What is the other?

Genetic drift effects smaller populations much more than it effects larger populations. Rather good. But remove "much". This relation is rather gradual. The smaller the population the larger the drift.

There are several theories that make up major parts of genetic drift. I find this obscure and uninformative. What are those parts?

The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that within large populations, the frequency of alleles will remain constant from generation to generation, unless equilibrium is disturbed. the context seems to imply that H-W is part of drift. It is not. It is about non-drift.

It is almost impossible for a population to meet these criteria, "these criteria" cannot be used before the criteria are mentioned. Equilibrium is necessarily at hand if the following criteria are at hand ... Remove "almost"; one of the criteria is infinitely large population.

because they must have 1) no mutations between generations 2) no immigration or emigration in the population 3) no condition that favors a particular allele; no selection 4) totally random mating. A population that is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is analogous to a deck of cards; no matter how many times the deck is shuffled, no new cards are added and no old ones are taken away. Good!

--Ettrig (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the criticism, I will work on incorporating the changes you suggest as soon as possible. I totally understand some of the organizational things you suggest, as well as the items that need a change in wording. Also, with the first statement, do you think that I should create a separate section purely for genetic drift? Thats what it sounded like when I read through it, but I am not sure if thats what you meant. Thanks again!--M rickabaugh (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to discern what should and what should not go into this introduction. Since several others have been clear that they think this is valuable I didn't voice my view, that this article should abstain from trying to explain about drift. I think it's too difficult. Maybe a concrete analogy, like the paint jars in genetic drift would help. But it has to be done very carefully. Yes, if it remains, it must be in another section.--Ettrig (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to try to make genetic drift a part of the article. I am going to try to, in writing this section, keep the context at about a level a high school student like myself could understand. Some of the formulas involved are much to in depth for an introduction, so I will omit them from the content in this article, but I will include the basics of Hardy-Weinberg (mostly what is already there), population bottlenecks, and the founder effect. Those three things seem like they are fairly understandable to most readers. I will have the full Genetic Drift article linked to it though. Since you seem to be an expert on the subject by looking at your talk page and what you have contributed to genetic drift, I am glad to have your critiques on what I have written. I believe I have addressed most of your concerns from your first comment. I am going to work on an analogy similar to the paint jars on genetic drift that can be included in this section.--M rickabaugh (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Help

One of the points brought up in the FA Review of this article is that citations are in a multitude of different formats. I tried to start making them all the same format today, but realized how hard that was going to be. There are 100+ citations, and probably 10 different ways they are done. If someone or a group of people could help me re-format all these citations, it would be greatly appreciated, because It would take me several hours if not days to do it myself.--M rickabaugh (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Before starting the task, we should settle here...on the talk page...how the citations ought to look. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No Pain - No Gain

My dear student. FA attempts can be disheartening. There is much to be gained by the experience. Note: Criticisms must be supported by specifics - general statements such as the "prose sucks" weigh little in the decision making process. Therefore, the challenge will be addressing the many specific concerns that arise. This is where collaboration comes in. There are six others in the class, which could salvage their reputation by assisting. Others will emerged from the wood-work to assist as well - if you are tactful. The FA process will remain open as long as you are actively editing for improvement or at least until the admin. grows bored with the efforts. The underlying goal of the FA process is improvement - which will be the case irregardless of whether you convince the community that it is near flawless. I had hoped the reference format was acceptable. It passed the gauntlet in the past; however, the standards may have been raised over the last 2-3 years. The lead will never appease - the reason it is so long now is that it tries to be all things to all people. I suggest saving edits there until the body of the article is finished. I know some talented editors which I can send out a plea if you need; however, the feedback given so far has been very professional - on this you are extremely lucky. However, I suspect you will come across extremist which will challenge for the sake of creating impasses - either in objection to the topic, objection to introduction articles, or they're just bitter in general. Abortion, Obama-Care or even Witch Craft may have been an easier challenge. This is in part because the editors that monitor evolution tend to be both intelligent and passionate and are not always easy to appease. If I can be of assistance let me know. Remember - be polite - you will find there are no shortages of talented editors who established their intellect through positive contributions; not by limiting their contributions to criticisms!Good Luck!--JimmyButler (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see a new FA attempt. Someone has thick-skin. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We are hoping for a more contributory atmosphere with toned-downed egos than we experienced years ago! The trick will be to keep my opinions /fingers off the key-board. Maybe I've grown up some! As for my students - I trust they will represent with dignity?!--JimmyButler (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe FAC's like Shakespeare authorship question will keep the fringe busy elsewhere. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that polishing the rest of the article should come before citation cleaning. I am glad that the reviews have been constructive and polite thus far... I've see some harsh comments on other candidates as I looked through the FAC board. I plan to edit as much as possible, and address the most important concerns (minus citation cleaning) as soon as I can. This does seem a whole lot larger now than it did when I was just talking about doing it though.--M rickabaugh (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has changed hundreds of times. In its present form, it reflects the efforts of many. It is good as is. However, it is long. The question now is whether in pursuit FA should we follow a guideline for length and sacrifice the work of so many? The best I can offer after reading it multiple times is merging paragraph 3 and 4 in the lead; then moving the extensive loss of content to the appropriate section. Here:

• Random genetic drift describes another process that regulates evolution. The majority of genetic mutations neither assist, change the appearance of, nor bring harm to individuals. These mutated genes are neutrally sorted among populations and survive across generations by chance alone. In contrast to genetic drift, natural selection is not a random process because it acts on traits that are necessary for survival. Natural selection and random genetic drift are constant and dynamic parts of life. More than 99.9% of all species have become extinct since life began over 3.5 billion years ago. Evolution is more death than survival and over time this has shaped the branching structure in the tree of life.

Shall we leave it here awhile and see if anyone else has an opinion?--JimmyButler (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonus points and a smiley face for the student that masters the archive and does so for the older sections on this Talk Page!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Students - I have attempted a lead reduction - a section that has evolved more than any other living thing on the planet. I hated for you guys to take the heat for a section that will never satisfy the masses. Maybe the short version will fly. The rest is yours. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Folow-up from FA page - ie. class assignments with assigned pt value.

I will be transfering the least controversial concerns here for my students to address. Type fixed underneath the concern - I will cross them out for you.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature.

Consider reviewing each site and decide which are most beneficial to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I would reduce this by half (5pts).

I have gone through to every page, and have removed the links that are irrelevant, off-topic, or duplicates. If there is any question on why some have been removed, I have the original links section saved to restore it, and I am willing to explain why I removed certain ones. The two in particular I will mention are the EvoWiki page, because all of this information is present on Wikipedia currently, and is more accurate because of peer-review. Also I have taken the second Carl Sagan video off, because a the first one has the same illustrations, and is more comprehensive than the second.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir Cryptic, the Wise

Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:

• WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
  • Fixed - Please review. Dramatic reduction of detailed explanation of genetic drift which is addressed in the appropriate sections.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
  • Fixed--JimmyButler (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
  • Fixed--Rebekah best (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
  • Fixed I had to incorporate some of the information from this section into the article before deleting it in order to be sure that the summary was no longer adding new information to the article.--Rebekah best (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("—").

• Actually, spaced endashes are allowed per WP:MDASH. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I had missed that note. I thought em dashes were required, but I see now that they are merely preferred (by me, anyway). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
  • Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
• Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.

From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.

• Fixed--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir Nikkimaria, the Brave

Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time

• Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
• Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
  • Fixed - as noted above under same concern raised by Cryptic C62--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."

• The deck of cards analogy is something I thought of myself, I did not obtain it from anywhere. I'm also working on citing the other things you pointed out here. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed I think.--M rickabaugh (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting

• Im working on cleaning these up. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc
  • Fixed (partially) Unfortunately, I am no expert on wikilinking. I did, however, try to space the images out a little better. The images need to go with the appropriate sections, so I spaced the images out as best I could without pairing them with the wrong sections.--Rebekah best (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir Rusty Cashman, the Pure

Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions:

• I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
  • Fixed. I agree with you, because the subject does no offer any strong evidence for evolution.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I took a shot at this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the help here! I want to look to see if there is anything else I can add, if it is necessary, but what you have added so far is great!--M rickabaugh (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.

• Fixed I have reworded the section to hopefully make it more clear, providing explanation where I feel it is necessary. I also removed the list, because my teacher said that lists are not typically popular in FA reviews. I have worked all the same information, in more detail, into the body of the text.--M rickabaugh (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir RJHall, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot

Oppose for now—Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.

• The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.

• I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011

  I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.

  Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?—RJH (talk)

  • I understand what you are saying and I was under the impresion that you wanted an in depth definition which is not unreasonable... untill you take into consideration the great number of technical terms involved in this article make it far overbearing it would have more ors than a carthaginian warship..--Firekragg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

• The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.

• Fixed I have included a definition of allele.--M rickabaugh (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.

• Fixed--M rickabaugh (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.

• Fixed to an extent The history behind modern synthesis is an important aspect of modern synthesis, but I have added refrence, as well as exemplifing the actual explanation in the article. ..--Firekragg (talk) 9:19, 7 April

• It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.

• I'm not sure if it would be beneficial to move the section from the current spot. I think that all the sections above the evidence section outline key parts of evolutionary theory, and that it makes sense to display all of the evidence after the theory as a whole is explained.--M rickabaugh (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
  • Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
  • CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
  • Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
  • Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

• Fixed--Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.

• Fixed List reviewed and dramatically reduced.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed I found the links to two of the journals and used the full names.--Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest GA review as next goal

When the clean up from the FAC is over. I would suggest nominating this article for a good article review. A GA review can be a good way to get a thorough focused review of the entire article from a good editor, and usually one with an interest in the topic. I think the article is close to meeting the GA criteria, and it should be considerably easier to get an introductory article like this one to GA level than to FA where you will eventually run into questions about completeness. Once you get it certified as a GA, you can consider when and if another FAC would be appropriate. There is nothing stopping you from going for FAC again right away of course, but articles that are not really ready, and this one really wasn't, often don't get a lot of attention at FAC, and I think a GA review, and it is much closer to GA standards, might be a faster way to improve the article from this point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge "Convergent Evolution" section

The "Convergent evolution" section (discussing Analogous structures) was at least partially redundant with the "Comparative Anatomy" sub-section under "Evidence for Evolution", which has Convergent evolution as a see-also. Even though the main thrust of the content differs ("Evidence of evolution" vs "aspects of evolution"), I WP:BOLDly merged the sections to improve the focus of the article. Mildly Mad^T_C 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Citation Re-Vamp

I am going to attempt to make all of the citations in this article into the same form, to address some of the issues with the FAC nomination. I have the format I want to use (see Little tunny or Mauritian Tomb Bat for examples I did last semester). My one obstacle is that I am not sure how to attack it. I am going to try to go section at a time, but if anyone has a method that they think would be more effective/quicker please let me know. Thank you. --M rickabaugh (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on my experience, going section by section, and reviewing your changes after each section is best. If you try to do the entire article in a single edit, not only are you more likely to make a mistake, but you are likely to have really annoying edit conflicts with other editors. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice!--M rickabaugh (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

sexual selection completely over looked?

I tagged 'sexual selection' in the intro because I noticed that it was completely overlooked. leaving it out seems to me, to be a rather large oversight in introducing someone to the basic ideas of evolution. ralfyrules ( talk) 05:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Too specific for the intro, I think. It's part of natural selection. I have deleted it, but if there is a good way of introducing the concept lower down in the article, please have a go. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep it as an introduction

In general i think the articles on evolution are surprisingly pure and factual, and the inclusion of an "introduction" article a great idea. Good job. I do however have four minor concerns - 1) The wording is slightly on the heavy side - not for those that do not need an introduction, but for those that do. 2) The need for accuracy, to some extend, goes against the purpose of an introduction - maybe some of the details should be included as links rather than text, or alternatively in template:hidden - i.e. Genetic drift could be explained, with links to Hardy-Weinberg and others rather than each detailed description, the same goes for Evidence for evolution. As i see it, the main article on evolution is slightly technical for an average encyclopedia, however good it is, and the need for a less technical perspective has spilled over and left this as a normal encyclopedic version rather than an introduction 3) In the evidence for evolution it strikes me that the fossil record seems to be given more weight than reasonable, compared to i.e the traceable changes in Mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal DNA, through all living organisms. 4) In general, there seem to be given a lot of weight to mutation in it self, in comparison to its accumulation through sexual reproduction. SorenOlin ^{[ talk to me ]} 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Accessible?

This article claims on its very top: "This article is an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject." Two sentences onwards we read sophisticated statements with many technical terms like "The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection." Sorry, guys... But that's not accessible to me. --rtc (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps what you need is [1]. Also, each of those terms is wikilinked, so if you follow them, it may be more comprehensible.

I agree with the tone of Rtc's comment, and that of SorenOlin above. The article is not so accessible as it might be, and one of its chief defects is its prose. A first paragraph which boasts a sentence 53 words long is not a welcome sight. I'm sorry to say it, but the standard of writing does not compare with that of Encyc Brit's introductory articles. I've been around long enough to know that WP's group-think rarely produces good writing... but anyway, thanks for the link to Simple! Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolution, medicine, and psychology

With this edit, I have tried to help our readers by clarifying how the theory of evolution is applicable to medicine and psychology. When you apply the theory of evolution to medicine you're practicing evolutionary medicine, which is not the same thing as applied medicine (prescribing drugs and performing surgery). You don't need to know a single thing about evolution to perform a heart transplant. But instead of specific examples, other editors seem to prefer some nebulous statement of Darwin's supposed influence. That's the only way I can explain these two reversions. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You might not need direct knowlege of evolution to practice applied medicine, but the research that developed those practices has greatly relied on evolutionary thought. The same goes with pscyhology. The role that evolutionary knowledge plays in applied medicine and psychology is enormous and indisputable, and not limited to the narrow fields you mention. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You claim that "Evolutions influence in medicine and psychology extend FAR beyond these two narrower fields." I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to ask you to provide a few examples of evolution's influence (outside of evolutionary medicine, that is). Most medical schools (at least in the U.S.) do not teach evolutionary biology because it isn't seen as a vital component of medical education. Only fairly recently, however, have there been efforts to change this view. As for evolution's influence being "enormous and indisputable," I don't think this is true. This is one of the earliest textbooks published that is specifically dedicated to evolutionary medicine; here's what the book description states: "Evolution is the single most important idea in modern biology, shedding light on virtually every biological question, from the shape of orchid blossoms to the distribution of species across the planet. Until recently, however, the theory has had little impact on medical research or practice." If evolution's influence has been "enormous and indisputable," this description doesn't make it sound all that convincing. As for the techniques physicians and surgeons rely on to treat patients, very few of these (outside of evolutionary medicine) rely much on evolution. --50.46.252.252 (talk)

I'm a clinical research scientist (microbiology and hematology, working mostly with diagnosis and treatment of cancers in children), and I can't think of a single advance in my field in the last 50 years in my field, microbiology, that hasn't depended heavily on evolution. This includes infectious disease, antibiotic resistance, pathogenicty, drug development, immunization, immunology, infection control, nutrition, diagnosis, public health, genetics, biochemistry, oncology and physiology.

Every doctor prescribing an antibiotic, giving a vaccination or providing genetic counseling is actively engaging in "evolutionary medicine". Also, every doctor (at least in the US) has been educated in at least the basics of evolution before medical school, as they are all required to take biology. Surgeons do a lot more than slice and dice, and evolution-based infection control is a major part of their job.

Two of the hottest topics in modern medicine, superbugs like MRSA and VRE and the evolution of the HIV virus, are entirely based on evolution. That leaves very few fields of medicine that have not been greatly influenced by evolutionary biology. Radiology is the only one I can think of at the moment.

Also, medicine is a lot more that what a doctor does in his office or operating room. Medicine is what is developed by medical researchers like me in the laboratory. Even doctors who are completely ignorant of evolutionary biology are taking advantage of advances made thanks in large part to evolutionary biology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Prescribing antibiotics is not evolutionary medicine. Discovering that certain compounds are helpful at controlling or killing pathogens is not evolutionary medicine. Studying how microbes evolve resistance to antibiotics and how evolution has shaped the host-pathogen relationship is evolutionary medicine—but most physicians don't do that. Those who study evolution and try to apply it to medicine are working in the field of evolutionary medicine—either that or they're involved in another field altogether (microbiology, for example). I'm not denying that understanding evolution is important in microbiology and virology. Nor am I denying that medicine has drawn on the discoveries of both of these fields. What I am disputing is that the medical profession has applied the theory of evolution to the practice of medicine. That's what the article explicitly claims—"Evolution is the principal theory that biologists use to understand life and is used in many disciplines, including medicine"—but it isn't true. If physicians have an interest in the ultimate cause of depression or obesity, then it's purely academic (outside of evolutionary medicine), because there is no way to incorporate that knowledge into actual therapy. Evolutionary medicine is considered a distinct field for a reason: it's medicine's attempt to make the theory of evolution relevant to the profession. All U.S. physicians have also studied English, chemistry, and physics, but that doesn't make them linguists, chemists or physicists. I've provided a published source which states in no unequivocal terms that evolutionary theory has historically played little role in medical practice and research. You've given me personal anecdotes. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing I said conflicts with your source, nor does the text of the article conflict with your source (read it carefully). The article says that it's "used in many disciplines, including medicine and psychology", which is indisputably true. It also says "until recently", which is consistent with the last forty years, during which time the impact it has had on medicine has been enormous. Your error is in thinking that medicine is only what doctors do in their office (glorified garage mechanics). Medicine is a lot more than that, as I've explained. In the past forty years, it's become a full-fledged science. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the last paragraph before accusing me of not reading it carefully enough:

The modern understanding of evolution began with the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics.[8] Fossil discoveries in paleontology, advances in population genetics and a global network of scientific research have provided further details into the mechanisms of evolution. Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation) and have observed the speciation process in the laboratory and in the wild. Evolution is the principal theory that biologists use to understand life and is used in many disciplines, including medicine, psychology, conservation biology, anthropology, forensics, agriculture and other social-cultural applications.

It does not say "until recently." The article claims evolutionary theory is "used" by medicine. It is...in evolutionary medicine. I have provided a source that states that "...the theory has had little impact on medical research or practice." Why has the theory had little impact? Because it's not used. This has changed with the advent of evolutionary medicine. You have provided no examples, no sources, nothing to substantiate your claims other than anecdotes. I'm not arguing that medicine isn't a science. But you can be a science without ever touching evolution, and outside of evolutionary medicine, the medical profession does not apply evolutionary thinking to practice. Knowledge of the proximate causes of disease has been the mainstream since the beginning and outside of evolutionary medicine continues to be the norm. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. That is OR, based on a very faulty understanding of what "medicine", "science" and "evolution" mean, and a misinterpretation of the source. The source does not say ""...the theory has had little impact on medical research or practice". It says "Until recently, however, the theory has had little impact on medical research or practice". Big difference. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is a book called Evolutionary Medicine. That's the big difference. The authors are saying that until the advent of evolutionary medicine, which indeed has been quite recently, evolutionary theory has played no significant role in medicine. Please do not accuse me of OR. I am the only one who has provided any published source to support my arguments. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is correct, and supports the current wording of the article. Until recently, evolution indeed did not play a major role in medicine. It does not support your contentions 1) that is currently does not play a major role, and 2) that its influence is limited to the subfield of evolutionary medicine. Those conclusions were OR on your part. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution still does not play any significant role in medicine outside of evolutionary medicine. That's why medical schools don't teach it. I have challenged you to provide me a single published study in medicine that has relied on evolutionary theory to reach a conclusion, any study outside of the Journal of Evolutionary Medicine or similar publications. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Take your pick: [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu is correct. There is no reason to change the current version.--Charles (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. To limit the influence of evolution on medicine to something called "evolutionary medicine" is partly tautology, partly meaningless and unhelpful denial of its wider influence. You might as well say that evolution has influenced "evolutionary cookery". The point of the sentence in question is to assert (quite correctly) that medicine as a whole has been influenced by the study of evolution. Stet. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well. Restricting medicine to "actual therapy" is nonsensical. Is medical research not medicine then? After all, most medical researchers don't actually heal anyone firsthand. And did you expect sciences to actually be evolving something for it to count as "application" as well? With statements like "because there is no way to incorporate that knowledge into actual therapy" you make it sound as if medical schools are little more than vocational colleges on the art of butchery. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, I have removed the little jabs at religion "...they (Creationists) still believe, even today, that..." and "...it was not the work of an intelligent engineer..". This really isn't the place for a Creation-Evolution debate. This page is not supposed to be for discussion of the general topic. Just a forum on the improvement of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmenta (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The small "e" in "evolution"

It really should be capitalized.

Marmenta (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

done Fjf1085 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

actually not done... I tried but I'm not sure why it didn't work. Fjf1085 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No it should not be capitalised. It is not a proper noun.--Charles (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC

How is evolution not a proper noun? In the main article it's capitalized... Fjf1085 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a guideline that says that only the first word of an article title should be capitalized. So the title is fine as it is! Lova Falk talk 18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "evolution" isn't capitalized in Evolution except in titles and as the first word in sentences.Sjö (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a proper noun too. But that makes sense. :) Marmenta (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientific theory

Not a soapbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As evolution is still regarded a scientific theory it is not an undisputed fact. There should be a section disucssing the evidence against evolution, such as; genetic mutations only reduce DNA, no observable mutations have ever increased the DNA in any species; also that all past 'gap-theories' of links in the evolutionary chain have been proved false, along with several current archaeological finds; and that no transitional fossils have been found, and those that have been claimed as transitionary fossils have been proved otherwise.Topher anton (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC) You're barking up the wrong tree, and regurgitating creationist nonsense. See Evolution as fact and theory and the FAQ at the top of the talk page at the main article on evolution here: talk:Evolution. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC) But there is no link to that page Evolution as fact and theory from this, and an introductory work should provide a reader with the different viewpoints even if they aren't regarded as complete. In either case this isn't creationist, it's observable science and should be in the scope of an introduction to the topic.Topher anton (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC) You would make better use of your time by trying that line on another website. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and its editors are generally not among those who reap the rewards of science while denying its conclusions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC) But do you deny that for an informative article, such as Wikipedia, an alternative position from a reliable source, should be included for the purposes of informing? If the rejection of this idea is based on non reliable sources then I can write the section myself, with at least a dozen peer reviewed references. If, however, the basis of your rejection is in your own preconceptions then shouldn't it be the basis of scientific study (as evolution is) to identify and remove subjectivity from empirical observations? Just saying, maybe you don't agree with something, but that doesnt mean it's not a valid view that others will want to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topher anton (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC) I would be very surprised if you can find a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which will support your position. Please stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC) A reliable source as defined by Wikipedia includes peer reviewed journal articles and scholarshhip including books, journals, articles, so long as they are not original research. The same page maintains that Neutrality should be maintained within the Wikipedia article. Examples of the references I would include are book by multiple authors, including non-creationists, journals such as Science and Nature - which this article already cites from - and creationist journals - Journal of Creation - which are peer reviewed by the scientific community and by active working biologists, paelentologists, geologists, researchers, and so on. If this article should maintain neutrality then this view should be on the introduction page. The FAQ page for this article maintains that creation is not included as a criticism on the same grounds that a 'flat earth' view is not included for the figure of the earth. However, it is emperically verifiable that the earth is round, whereas evolution has not been observed and is well contested. I would like to point out the less than 100 years ago it was illegal to teach evolution in schools, yet now there is apparently no alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topher anton (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Journal of creation is not a reliable source. Also its not a WP:NPOV source as their statement is. "Journal of Creation is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins." So anything that goes against the bible is rejected. Which is a clear pov. Also WP:UNDUE, creationism is a minority viewpoint among scientist. Despite that there is already an external link to the Creation–evolution controversy. Which in my opinion is already more then it deserves. I suggest you read the talk pages archives on evolution. So you can see that the creationist pov will not get put in. NathanWubs (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC) If you're getting you're information from creationist sources and fake "journals" like Journal of Creation, you're doing yourself a great diservice. All you'll find there is useless and misleading nonsense, just like all of the stuff you've just regurgitated. Journal of Creation is not peer-reviewed, regardless of what they themselves claim. It's just an apologetic rag that tries to pass itself off as "scientific" and "academic". At best, it's entertaining to read for amusement. It has no place here on WP, except perhaps as an example of creationist nonsense. If you want to know more about this topic, do yourself a big favor and start reading real scientific literature by real scientists publishing in real academic journals. Also read our articles related to evolution and creationism, and read the talk pages as well. You'll soon see what kind of sources are considered relaible here on WP, and what kind are not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)