Talk:Evolution/Misc

Moved from Talk:Evolution. --Brion 23:17 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Misc.

The sentence "Evolution therefore allows life to persist over time" was changed to read "...to persist over greater spans of time." Lineages can certainly evolve but still eventually die out. Also, the paragraph on the molecular basis of evolution was added primarily to continue the campaign against teleological thinking about adaption. Suze

Disagree. Some lineages eventually die out, but there are others that show no sign of being about to, and life as a whole seems to be doing a great job persisting itself. --JG

I disagree, in that the phrase 'persist over time' does not mean 'persist throughout time', i.e., it does not imply eternal persistence. So the change was unnecessary. But the current wording is not bad - just not better, in my opinion. TS

Is there a good place to put what I think of as "Evolution Analogizing". For instance, we have a good entry on Meme, but the concept of meme should be recognized for what it is - creeping evolutionary analogizing.

Where did the article on punctured equilibrium go? This is a min tenent of evolution, yet its page seems to have dissapeared entirely. I can no longer find it in a search, even though I distictly remember it being there before, and there is no link to it form the evolution page. Am I missing something more basic? (Yes, I did make sure I was spelling it right. Not that basic. :p)

The first paragraph defines biological evolution as change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.

But this is surely not called transmutation, right? Something is wrong. Isn't evolution simply the change of species over time, and the appearance of new ones? Genetics seems to properly belong to the theory of evolution, because one could conceivably try to explain this transmutation without genetics. --AxelBoldt

I just changed the "refers to the change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time" because of the above reason. If we define evolution as the change of genetic characteristics of populations, then Darwin did not know anything about evolution. --AxelBoldt

I think someone should modify the "origin of life" section to specifically mention that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abogenesis and is specifically dealing with already created life. I showed the link to a friend the other night and he had trouble disassociating the two due to the correct absense of it being spelled out. --Kugamazog

This picture of Darwin with his furrowed brow, makes him look like a Cro-Magnon Man :)).--socrtwo 03:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ratchet process in evolution?

I deleted the following paragraph:

Evolution in self-replicating systems involves a 3-stage ratchet process. (1) A mutation (change in the information comprising the original form) occurs. (2) The new form interfaces and interacts with its environment. (3) The result of that interaction is referred to as natural selection, and amounts to either the survival of the new form (the ratchet bites successfully and holds in place) or the destruction of the new form (the ratchet fails and falls back).

for a variety of reasons. The first step of evolution is not mutation, but variation -- mutation is one source of variation, but there are others including sexual reproduction. Also, numbers two and three seem sort of redundant, while leaving out important information: population growth and competition. Finally, I didn't know biologists use the metaphor of "ratchet" -- I had nver heard of a "ratchet process." If I am wrong please educate me -- Mav, AdamRetchless, or someone else. In any event, I think the body of the article provides a better description of the model, rendering this account unnecessary, Slrubenstein

It's a bad metaphor becase it suggests that there is some ultimate goal to be achieved rather than blind mutation for the sake of survival. Mintguy

Another good point -- still, my question was not whether it is a good or bad metaphor (thought I agree with Minguy), but whether this is a metaphor that biologists actually emply. If it is widely used, it ought to be mentioned in the article. If it isn't -- I take it that Mintguy agrees with me, it is best deleted, Slrubenstein

I've never heard of it, but I don't study evolution, in itself. (Though I did just buy Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory") adam

Do we need both this page and Theory of evolution? -- Zoe

I thought the comments below taken from a metawiki talk page, Origins of Everything, would be of interest here and something to consider (although perhaps more relevant to the talk pages of the Theory of Evolution article or a Controversies re Evolution article if one is ever created). Someone, somewhere sometime once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge...":

"I would argue that the simplest explanation of all is that the universe was always here. Alan D"

"I'd go further and add that it is here to stay and that God is a natural extension of the universe. If mainstream Christianity (or other religions for that matter) were not so invested in its transcendent God (a concept which atheists and many philosophers and scientists recognize as incoherent and rubbish) and settled for a being that was, shall I say, a little more down to earth, religous conflicts with certain scientific theories (like the theory of evolution) would be seemingly moot. Consider that the process of evolution is ongoing...what comes next after humans? Genetically enhanced superhumans? what then?...and after that? Consider a being that over time nature has endowed with such power, knowledge (and hopefully benevolence) that humans might perceive, THAT is God! At that point god or God or supreme being or whatever you want to call it would work as an extension of the universe in creation or evolution whichever you want to call it. B"

What, a mention of the Journey album but no mention of the fine email client? Surely shome mishtake?! =) --AW

I'm not sure about this new section on "post-Darwinism". I've never seen this term used widely. There are certainly sensible things to be said about roles of natural selection vs. self-organization (e.g. the structuralists/internalists: Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman vs. selectionists/externalists Dawkins etc.) in evolution, but I've never heard anyone seriously propose that evolution "causes" natural selection. In fact, it doesn't really make sense. Evolution is a process we observe, requiring mechanisms to explain it, not the other way around. I edited out some of the more egregious neologisms "auto-organization", and fixed some typos, but left the essence of it intact so we can improve on it. Lexor 08:25 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. RK 23:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I reworked the section, removing the "post-Darwinism" term, introduced the structuralist themes such as Brian Goodwin which is the context these issues are more usually discussed in, and NPOVed some of the later sections on Dawkin's & Dennett, and finally moved the whole thing to the end of the article. -- Lexor 08:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

At the moment I am concerned with this article on biological evolution, which is pretty good. Unfortunately, someone set up a parallel article called Theory of evolution; it seems to me that this violates Wikipedia NPOV policy. I propose that it be removed, and turned into a redirect for this article. My reasons are as follows. RK 23:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(1) That theory of evolution article is a poor rehash of our already extant article on evolution, minus most of its good points. (2) It will confuse efforts to improve our articles on this subject. Some people will add contributions here, but others will add contributions to the evolution article. (3) The title itself ("Theory of evolution") is very misleading, as virtually all scientists accept that biological evolution is a proven phenomenon; its existence is a fact, and not merely a theory, as the title implies. The details of how lifeforms evolve from one form to another are considered "theories" or "hypotheses", and of course should and are labeled as such. But the basic existence of biological evolution is not questioned. (4) Any science article on biological evolution should not contain extensive discussions of mystical views! Religion and science are already spun-off into other topics, such as Creationism and a few others. An article on the science of evolution should not contain quasi-scientific mystical writings of 19th century Christian Jesuit priests (like this theory of evolution currently does); these are not recognized as being part of the theory of evolution by mainstream science. Such discussions belong in other articles. RK 23:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RK's proposal and his reasons #1 & #2. I partly agree with reasons #3 & #4. My sense is that those wikipedians who are most interested, active and responsible would like to follow RK's proposal too. If we are going to do "Theory" of Evolution, why not have an article on Gravity and Theory of Gravity? or go back to Atom AND Atomic Theory?... B 21:10 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Historical concepts of evolution from antiquity to the 19th century should be discussed in a section titled "History of evolutionary thought", which could become a separate article if it gets too long. Certainly the evolution article needs to mention creationism, especially in that historical context, but the details of creationist thought obviously belong in a separate article. The existing article Theory of evolution should redirect to this one. --Eloquence 21:33 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The evolution article would not necessarily have to refer to creationism if there were also a separate article like "Controversies regarding evolution". An article like that would act as the gateway for interested parties to move to other lines of thought. A similar thing has been done for the articles Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Controversies regarding Mormonism. In this way the primary topic get consideration (without going too far off on tangents), its history gets consideration, and alternative views on the topic get consideration. B 22:23 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I feel that many of the historical comments in Theory of Evolution are pertinent and worth reading, especially since some of them extend the concept of evolution to non-biological systems. I suggest that both pages be merged; or perhaps Theory of Evolution could be retitled "History of the Theory of Evolution" or even "Evolution of the Theory of Evolution". - Joseph D. Rudmin

"Evolution of the Theory of Evolution"?! UGH!!! B 22:23 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think it is a bit of a problem that the fate of the theory of evolution is currently discussed in three different pages, by different people. It would be nice that a central place is decided. Please see also Talk:speciation and Talk:theory of evolution.

I tried to make obvious in the theory of evolution a point that I think is not clear or emphasized enough in this article

A theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how evolution occurs. Evolution can be defined as the process by which organisms originate by transformation out of yet existing organisms, and not by direct creation into their final state.

When talking about biological evolution, there is often a confusion the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved (and are continuing to change) from older ancestral organisms and there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.

Most modern biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact, even if a "fact" can only mean "confirmed" when all evidence seems to converge. But, many biologists also admit they are less certain of the exact mechanism or mechanisms (theory) of evolution. Most evolutionists make a very clear distinction between theory and fact because they acknowledge how far from completely understanding the mechanisms by which evolution occurred they are.

I think this is *very* important.

RK comment to this add-on was

This makes no sense. We do not do this for any other science topic. Why do this here? Every science topic is based on facts, but also requires discussion of theories. We never chop up our articles in this way; that is terribly confusing. Also, your recent additions are confusing, because many Wikipedia readers will never see them. They will only be seen by people who by chance read this article, but they will be totally missed by people reading the main Evolution article.

I agree with the second part of his statement, but still maintain that this is very important and not emphasized enough.

I think that there should be two separate articles, one for the facts (the concept of evolution in general) and the second for the theory (or rather the theories), in short the different mechanisms proposed to explain evolution. This is especially important as evolution is now little questionned, but all the mechanisms are still not "proved" and theories controversial.

RK comment above

(3) The title itself ("Theory of evolution") is very misleading, as virtually all scientists accept that biological evolution is a proven phenomenon; its existence is a fact, and not merely a theory, as the title implies. The details of how lifeforms evolve from one form to another are considered "theories" or "hypotheses", and of course should and are labeled as such. But the basic existence of biological evolution is not questioned.

is deeply representing that confusion. And qualifying "details" the heavy controversies which exist among biologists to try to define the mechanisms of the "very little controversial fact of evolution", is slightly derogatory to us.

Could not we separate these two considerations : the facts and the models established from the facts ?

Also, I think it not clear that what is usually referred to as The theory of evolution is Darwin's.

Finally, I am deeply troubled first by the shortness of the neodarwinist theory paragraph, and by the lack of other modern theories such as the one proposed by Margulis.

RK also said : Anthere, please state here precisely which non-science topics linked to evolution that you think we should have articles on. We can then add a mention of these topics to the main Evolution article, and we can link to them in new articles. The current fact of working on two totally different articles, on the same topic, being worked on simulatenously in a carzy patchwork way, is unworkable. RK

If these articles recover themselves, yes, absolutely, you are right that it is unworkable. If they are clearly labelled as taking care of different aspects, it is workable. I also have the feeling you label the whole content of the actual theory of evolution as non-science. I disagree.

RK also said

Anthere, I don't understand why you keep claiming to be confused. The issue is very simple. People are trying to link to an article on science, on the processs of biological evolution. When they do so, they expect to come to an article on that topic. They do not expect to be mislead to a side-topic article that has very little science (almost none at all, in fact), and instead focuses on the mystical views of a Jesuit Christian priest from a century ago!

If this is a reference to Teilhard de Chardin, he is more than a priest, and his views get much attention now in (physics-based) cosmology. EofT

This effectively pushes certain political and religious views into science articles. That is inappropriate. It is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy RK 21:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just as well, I can't understand why you refuse to link the current theory of evolution to the speciation article, while Margulis work (mentionned in the theory of evolution article) is focusing in explaining the origin of organelles in plant cells for example, hence a speciation mechanism. It looks to me as refusing to acknowledge a scientific work for reasons you don't explain other than "no linkage to an article dealing with the strange views of a jesuite from a century ago".

I would dare conclude that the issue can then not be solved by a bare redirection made to the evolution article, or by a renaming of this article. I think it is necessary to redefine clearly what should be in which one.

I am not convinced that the best title should be History of the Theory of Evolution without serious reworking of the content of both articles, since a good deal of the evolution article is historical stuff, while some of the work mentionned in the theory of evolution is less than 30 years old. Hardly history.

Anthère

Regarding terminology, "theory" does not mean "conjecture". In physics, "theory" usually means a rigorous mathematical model. I regard the phrase, "That is just theory," to indicate NOT that the model is doubtful, but that it could use refinement. True, this is not physics, but the word "theory" still does not detract from the fact of evolution. Furthermore the term "theory of evolution" is used so commonly that it should appear somewhere in the article, so that searches find it.

I echo these sentiments. An excellent parallel to the Theory of Evolution would be the Theory of Relativity in physics. -- NetEsq 01:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding reorganization of the articles, if someone feels so inspired, s/he should add a link at the end, "Comments by Jo Shmo", and create a suggested page or set of pages to replace the ones we have.

Joseph D. Rudmin

well, RK has decided for you and I. Your proposal just comes too late :-) Anthere

Well Done, RK! -Joseph D. Rudmin