User talk:Dweller/evol

A start

I started by borrowing the first paragraph from the Evolution article on the Social and cultural views. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks in response and in anticipation of all contributions. I'll probably get stuck into this tomorrow now. --Dweller (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RR's suggestion

RR - do I understand right that you'd be looking to put that section into the Lead? --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

location

As far as location is concerned, I think this would fit well as the last paragraph in the section that discusses "Darwin's idea", i.e. the first section. David D. (Talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it's not in the Lead or Summary, I'm pretty happy, but in the cause of trying to find a logical spot, I'd tentatively suggest the following: Rename the section "Different views on the mechanism of evolution" to make it slightly broader (I dunno, maybe by dropping "the mechanism of", or calling it "debate about..." or something) and make it the top subsection under an appropriate new subheading. That way, all of the arguments about and within, scientific and not scientific are covered in one section? What do you guys think? --Dweller (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might work too, it depends on how much Darwin is emphasised in the final paragraph. As is, it ties neatly with the discussion of Darwin. If we reduce the emphasis on Darwin a bit more then your suggestion here is pretty good. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we start with God and end up with the Selfish Gene! Dr Dawkins would be pleased. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are everywhere; I didn't see this. It connects to Darwin, at least in its reference that the most vocal and still on-going contention started with him. I hate to mix the social controversy in a section concerning different scientific perspectives, in that it may suggest there is a relationship and that scientific squabbles suggest a lack of unity on the theory.--Random Replicator (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your latter reasoning and besides I think it is a more natural fit with Darwin. I stated this here to keep the two discussions distinct. Last thing we want is two overlapping conversations. Actually, are you watching these pages? Edits here should be popping up on your watchlist too? David D. (Talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]