Talk:Evolution

Micro/Macroevolution

I'm not quite sure why microevolution and macroevolution are in two separate categories. It's a distinction that deserves some attention, but evolution/natural selection should be first considered as a whole and the differences between the two explained in a small addendum. Macroevoultion = the appearance and dissapearance of species, microevolution = change within a species. Also, I feel the creationist/scientific debate deserves a place on this page, but it too should get its own category. One section for the current scientific theories, another for creationist objections, scientific rebuttals, creationist rebutalls to rebutalls etc.

-Emmett

Thats a misconception- although many scientists argue that the same processes are involved in the speciation and other 'macroevolutionary' phenomena there are others who think that different process are involved then microevolution. The evidence may be controversal, but I think that they should be treated as different subjects, especially as there is such a clear difference between the two schools of thought and a lot of evolutionary literature deals with this topic.

-Gog

Evolution has lots of interesting stories about scientists studying changes within existing species, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but nowhere does it provide evidence that such changes can lead to new species, much less new forms of living things. --Ed Poor

This is one of the most oft-repeated myths around. There is abundant evidence of this. Even I (a non-biologist) can think of several new species that have been created by human breeding programs - the most obvious example is the nowhere-found-in-nature plant you are eating the crushed seeds of when you sit down for your morning corn flakes. It is worth noting that there is a very clever debating tactic used by anti-evolution campaigners here: first you claim that "science cannot identify any missing links between species" and then, once you have scientists running around pointing at examples of intermediate forms, you go limp on that charge and turn it around backwards, claiming instead that, seeing as there are all these intermediate forms, they are just variations around a mean, and therefore there is "no evidence for any new species". (I'm not suggesting that Ed said that, I should hasten to add, just that it's a common debating tactic amongst the more unscrupulous campaigners, and one that writers on evolution need to be aware of.) Tannin 06:47 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

The field of evolution is divided into two broad areas; microevolution and macroevolution.

Do actual biologists make this distinction? I know creationists do, in which case we should discuss it in that context (and possibly in the article on creationism or intelligent design). --Robert Merkel

No, biologists don't use those terms; they are the inventions of creationists so their definitions can change to dance around whatever evidence turns up. --LDC

I raised the same objection to Maveric149, and he convinced me that it is indeed a biological concept. I did some more checking on my own and indeed, these are valid biological terms. The point of contention is whether there is an absolute or relative difference between micro- and macroevolution. Scientists use ther terms to gloss a relative distinction. Creationists use the terms to argue for an absolute distinction. But to claim that micro- and macroevolution are two distinct processes is wrong and misconstrues scientific usage of the terms. Slrubenstein

I just did a major revision of the format and I think the article makes a lot more sense now. However, it is still confusing, largely because there is too much chatter, especially in the macroevolution section. I wrote an introduction for that section (which should really be the entire section) and I hope it clarifies the essence of the macroevolution debate among scientists. Regarding creationists and macroevoltion: if the macroevolutionists are right, then there is a huge issue in the history of life with little or no explanation. Most scientists don't have a problem with this; it just means that there is more work to be done. Any time a scientist says "I don't know", some arrogant fool has to jump in and pretend that he has all of the answers. adam

First, I have a question. Can we have "macroevolution" (as a concept) without "macromutation". I don't want to hear "Yes, we can have speciation without a special class of mutations specifically for that purpose." I want to know if anyone speaks of macroevolution without the assumption that it is caused by a specific type of mutation. Without "macromutation", I don't see how "macroevolution" is any different than speciation and divergence. However, I did a Google search for "macroevolution" and found a few articles that defined macroevolution without reference to macromutation. If they are separate concepts, I made a mistake; my knowledge is limited to the debate over macroMUTATION and I know nothing about macroevolution.

That being said, I tried to report the current status of the macromutation debate among scientists. Some scientists have told me their opinion first hand (and even if they don't believe in macromutation, their explanation of their belief showed that they are aware of it as a debate among scientists). Similar information can be found by doing a Google search on "macroevolution". I haven't done a search on "macromutation" yet. Anyway, I wrote this and some anonymous person trashed what I wrote and attributed my opinion (and the opionion of my professor) to creationists. LEAVE THE CREATIONISTS OUT OF THIS!!! I wish this person had read the talk page, and had read the articles referenced by Google, and had signed in so that I could direclty communicate with him.

BTW: This page should be limited to the general scientific consensus about evolution. Macromutation is an ongoing debate and should only be mentioned. Likewise, macroevoltuion (if there is such a thing independent of theories of marcomutation) is a very specific field and should also only be mentioned. This is very frustrating adam

Content of Evolution and Theory of Evolution

If we are refering to the biological concept of evolution, and not some other kind of evolution (such as cultural evolution) then we have to state that we are discussing the biological concept. Then we state the referent.

Clearly don't need the word 'biological' as 'genetic' implies this

An encyclopedia article aims at clarity. Clarity states, it does not imply. We state what we are discussing, then we state the referent.

Redundant none the less - it is meaningless to talk about non-biological genetic change. Clarity may indeed state, but this means true clarity never implies, and thus there can be no truely clear encyclopedias.

not true. artificial life, genetic programming, genetic algorithms, machine replication, all involve non-biological genetics and evolution. Unless one considers having genetics to automatically classify something as "biological," which strikes me as somewhat unusual when discussing computer programs and machinery.

Guys, I find this a bizarre debate. Evolution is a process; one can also speak of the concept of evolution. You can reasonably say that the subject of an encyclopedia article titled "evolution" is either the process of evolution or the concept of the process of evolution. It doesn't matter.

For my part, I think "A biological concept that refers to" is poor strictly on copyediting grounds. I suppose that whenever we mention anything of which we have a concept, we should begin the article in this format? -- "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X". So: "Validity is a logical concept that refers to..." "Animal is a biological concept that refers to..." Etc. Jeez. Why not just say "Validity is.." or "An argument is valid iff..." and "An animal is..."? I don't see what the "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X" construction gains you.

It clarifies which concept of evolution we are refering to, the biological one. The text flows from the general to the specific. That is proper. That maxmizes clarity. There is no other way to unambigously show what we are talking about without using more words. There is a reason why this principle is used by every other encyclopedia.

It is not the case that every other encyclopedia begins articles about things of which we have concepts with the words, "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X"--or anything like those words, either. Yes, text ought to give something like genus and species when defining a thing. That does not entail that we need to refer to the concept in describing the thing carefully.

--LS

Should evolution and theory of evolution be merged? -- The Anome

I would prefer not to merge them

'evolution' is somewhat introductory (and the entry where one starts reading)
'theory of evolution' gives details
Shorter articles are easier to read on the screen (it is easier to grasp the information structure if one has a chunk of information and then specific links with additional information; for printouts it is the opposite)

Kwaku

But (as they presently stand, at least), the page on the theory of evolution feels rather like an afterthought. The evolution page has a lot of details and technical talk, however. I agree that there should be two separate pages - one for the concept of evolution in general, and another for the theory (and mechanisms) of evolution. But the way the information is distributed at the moment doesn't seem right.

Stuart Presnell

I don't understand how the "concept of evolution" is separate from the "theory of evolution". Also, if we want to discuss the detailed mechanisms by which evolution is thought to occur, then we can discuss them in articles dedicated to each specific mechanism. I think that there should be two main articles; one that addresses evolution as a natural process (describing the current state of the theory), and one that addresses it as a social phenomenon (with history, opposing personalities, reactions against it, etc.) Perhaps these could be evolution and theory of evolution, respectively. We should start discussing outlines for the two pages. adam

Hi adam; I like your idea a lot, and think it would help separate out the mess, except for one sticky issue: it's difficult to discuss the current state of the theory without including some of the opposing voices, especially creationist voices, because we can't simply say, "This isn't scientific", and relegate it to a separate article. This makes it difficult to simply lay out theory in one unsnarled page, because of the necessity of discussing where opposition is coming from. If you can think of a way to resolve this, then I think your framework is much better than what we currently have (which is a mess). Graft

If I had my way, creationism would only be a footnote in the discussion of evolution, but perhaps the political realities of Wikipedia don't permit that. I would like the article to explain the things that are commonly agreed upon by scientists, such as what we've already written about the common ancestory of all life, the sources of variation, and selection & drift as mechanisms determining which variants survive and which fail. It is legitimate and worthwhile to point out limitations and gaps in that "universal theory of evolution" that I described above, however I don't think that all of those discussions can be placed in one article. There are several limitations for any particular theory, and there are several theories, and each one of those could make an interesting article in their own right. Creationism/ID has no scientific value in itself. The criticisms that are used by creationists are either completely off the mark or nothing more than criticisms that real scientists target at each others' theory, combined with the attitude of "since we can't find a complete naturalistic explanation right now, there must not be one." adam

There is a need for a more general opening to the article -- the fact, is MANY people OFTEN use the word "evolution" in a non-biological context -- recent debates in the talk pages of early infanticidal childrearing and circumcision are good examples. slrubenstein

I agree. If you want to revert, go ahead. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002

I made some editorial changes in the beginning, contextualizing the use of the word "evolution" -- my goal was simply to make it read better.

I also added some specificity that I believe is necessary to avoid the revert war that has been going on over the past few days. I know that much of this war owes to a serious misunderstanding of the relationship between "fact" and "theory" that others have already addressed. But I think it is also important to distinguish between "evolution" and Darwin's theory of evolution which, strictly speaking, is not a theory of evolution per se (Mayr's work could be presented this way) as a theory of "the evolution of species through natural selection." That is, Darwin's work is more specific. In any event, "evolution" and theories of evolution (or "the theory of evolution" are not the same. Evolution is a natural process observable either directly or indirectly, and theories of evolution are models that attempt to account for evolution. The article should be clear about this distinction. Slrubenstein

The begining of this article is very confusing with how it talks about evolution as a general concept and then says "we're talking about biological evolution"...then talks more about evolution as a general concept. Also that last paragraph about evolution in general is good, but it doesn't fit into the rest of the article. I propose that most of the biology stuff be moved to a new page and we leave the general discussion of evolution on this page. What should we name the new page? Evolution (biology)? adam

Genetic Drift

I deleted a paranthetical characterizing genetic drift as "random." I think the use of this word is misleading. It is correct that drift is random in the sense that it is non-teleological (although the same could be said for natural selection -- it is functional but not because of any greater purpose). But "random" also suggests "arbitrary" and "patternless," when genetic drift is a statistically understandable process. Slrubenstein

I have been going over "drift" and realize I may be wrong about drift and randomness. So I would appreciate it if someone could incorporate into the article more discussion of this/clarification. What is the role of sampling error here? Also, could someone acurately describe the founder effect here? I think the crucial thing is that this article give a clear account of the other processes involved in evolution besides natural selection... Slrubenstein

I think that it is easy to understand what is meant by "random" in this context, but you are right that the wording isn't very precise. Would "stochastic" be better? Maybe we should forget that and get to the real point; in situations of "genetic drift", the cause of selection is not related to anything that is inherited. adam

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.

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

Inheritance and genetics as they apply to evolution

In the text of the evolution article it states:

In Darwin's time, there was no widely accepted mechanism for heritability. In modern times, the mechanism for heritability is known to be DNA. There is also the interesting possibility that proteins are responsible for some heritability.

I have a couple problems with this. First, DNA is a structural molecule and does nothing on its own. Therefore, it is not a mechanism. The mechanism of heritability is the process known as reproduction. To use an analogy, people are confusing the act of reading for the book being read.

Second, I'm trying to imagine how a protein could be a means by which traits are inherited and its awfully hard to see. In animals at least those proteins would be restricted to being in cell lines that evolve into sperm and egg. If anyone has scientific evidence for such I'd love to see a link rather than see this comment ad hoc. -- dwm.

Yes, you're confused, but I think the text is fine as it is. First, where do you get the idea that there's some black-and-white distinction between data-carrying elements and functional elements at the molecular level? Biochemistry isn't that simple. Certain strands of RNA, for example, can catalyze reactions by themselves, without being transcribed into proteins. I don't think anyone has shown DNA doing this, but I don't think it would terribly surprize anyone either. Secondly, I think the statement is being used in a more general sense than you're interpreting: DNA is a means by which heredity takes place. Maybe "mechanism" isn't the best word, and there are certainly lots of other pieces in the whole mechanism as well, but DNA does play a central role as the primary means of long-term storage of information. I think that's all they're trying to say here. The comment about proteins is potentially confusing, but it probably refers to recent discoveries about proteins that make their way into germ cells, mostly sperm. I'll try to find a citation. --LDC

Let me be plain. The reference chain for the protein heritability carries directly to prions, which are infectuous agents. I'm more likely to get a prion by eating my Mom as opposed to inheriting it. More so, they affect neural tissue, not germ cells. As well, even if they were capable of self-assembly in a soup of amino acids (which I *doubt*), they still are diseases and not something heritable. Finally, as all prion prteins are minor structural variants of normal proteins that are assembled from regular, central dogma controlled paths, there is no reason to believe that prions actually violate the central dogma in the first place.

As such, if I don't see a reference in a reasonable period of time, I think we'd be better off deleting that sentence as opposed to keeping it. Further, the whole concept of an inheritable protein suggests that the protein _encodes_ information that affects my cell lines in a non-germ way. Having 1 protein from my pop in a sea of billions isn't enough to claim heritability; I'll get more proteins (unwanted) from viral infections in my lifetime.

Finally, histone and histone-like binding proteins may be said to have an effec t on 'expression' of proteins, but a couple histones I get from my Dad aren't going to have much effect on a mature adult with billions of cells. Histones, can, in theory, affect 'expression', but they carry no information per se, nor can they reproduce independently. They're as dependent on the central dogma as any other protein. Which of course, begs the question: if I didn't inherit that information from my Dad, how can I make those proteins in sufficient quantity to even make a difference?

The more I think of it, the more difficult I see the task of justifying a protein based scheme of heritability. The protein has to hitch a ride in egg or sperm, else its not inherited. The protein must then appear in quantity in both germ and cell lines, and must do so without *any* central dogma support (i.e. the protein must be capable of self assembly), else the protein is a consequence of the central dogma itself, not in opposition to it. The protein in question must do something useful that helps the organism to survive, else its simply a parasite, not a property of the human condition. Those are very difficult and stringent conditions, and really shouldn't be idly tossed into the soup, if the goal of this pedia is accuracy.dave

I agree, it's a pretty speculative possibility only likely to influence to evolution of things like bacteria--certainly nothing as large as a human. So it probably doesn't need to be mentioned here. --LDC

Ok, I altered the sentence that bothered me most to:

In Darwin's time, there was no widely accepted in-depth mechanism for heritability. In modern times, the molecule that allows for heritability is known to be DNA, and the commonly accepted mechanism of expression of heritable information is called the Central Dogma

The reason being that the basics of reproduction had to be known in Darwin's time, that having sex led to offspring who had traits inherited from parents. Microscopes existed then, I'm sure von Leeuwenhook had seen sperm by then. What wasn't known was the mechanism of heritability at a molecular detail. I don't care for my writing and would invite others to think of a better way of expressing these notions. Dwmyers

When Darwin first published evolution, Jenkins came up with a very solid objection on the grounds that any individual variations would be watered down as they spread throughout the population, to the point where they effectively didn't exist. Mendelian genetics fixed that. I think the point here was to explain that.

Dear Graft,

You removed my reference to prions, saying that it wasn't relevent. While a discussion of the nature of inheritance is not absolutely necessary in a section about natural selection, if we are to discuss genes we should also discuss other means of heretible variation such as prions and epigenetics. Perhaps all of this should go into a different section addressing the nature of variation. (as should the comment about natural selection permitting the long term survival of life, since it is variation that permits the long term survival of life. Natural Selection = Death) adam

Hi Adam... I removed the reference to prions because I don't think it has much to do with heritable variation as it relates to evolution or natural selection, especially insofar as the forms of prions found so far seem to be diseases that kill within a generation. So, while they might be taken as a form of 'heritable variation' from a certain point of view, they don't represent a) a significantly sized class of heritable variation when compared to heritable variation due to genes, b) heritable variation if you take that to mean something transmitted consistently across many generations, and c) a mechanism for selective pressure (beyond the selective pressure induced by having some prionic disease, i.e., instantaneous death).

Genes should definitely get first priority, but heretible prions have been thoroughly examined (see True and Lindquist "A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity" Nature, 407, pg 477 (28 september 2000). Here's a quote about Lindquist's work:

Both yeast and mammalian prions transmit phenotypes via protein-protein interactions, in which an abnormally shaped prion protein influences its normal counterpart to assume an abnormal shape. In mammalian prion infection, such abnormal, insoluble shapes cause protein clumping that kills brain cells. In yeast cells, however, the insoluble prion protein is not deadly, but it alters protein synthesis. http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist4.html

In this example, prions do have all of the traits that you listed above.

Epigenetic factors are I suppose interesting and worth discussing, but I think we'd be better off just saying that what we're talking about is DNA, not genes, since this would include chromosome rearrangements and such and would preclude a larger and unnecessary discussion of the types of DNA variations we're talking about within the body of this Evolution article. Graft

Genetic and epigenetic factors have different means of inheritance; epigenetic factors (and prions) have the ability to "convert" similar genetic factors, and this conversion ability can be influenced by environmental factors. Granted, we don't know of many examples where these were influential, so genes should get the main emphasis, but I believe that once we understand more about the mechanisms behind prions and epigenetics, we will find more examples of them.

Well, frankly I think epigenetics is a bit faddish, but I haven't read an extraordinary amount on it. At any rate I think at this point most of the interesting aspects of epigenetics rest on speculation and the people who write/study it are interested in building it up to be more than it probably is. Sure, it might have dramatic implications for evolution, but then, the far side of Alpha Centauri might be made of Swiss cheese, and think of the dramatic implications that has... Soy muy esceptico. Graft

Maybe this should be addressed in biological inheritance

Creationism as it applies to the article

I don't want to but in and change a page on an issue that is controversial, but I think the two paragraphs about creationism unbalanced. The creationist movement exists only in the US. There is no debate about creationism in relation to evolution in the rest of the western world, and quite possibly the rest of the world too. If we mention creationism at all, it should be much less prominent, and clearly marked to be US-only. Something along the lines of:

In the US there is a significant Christian movement that rejects macro-evolution on relgious grounds. See Creationism for details.

NTF

I'm not sure what you're seeing here--I see only one paragraph that mentions creationism at all (and doesn't even link to it, which it should), and it's only a brief mention of one of its claims that doesn't really interfere with the rest of what is a reasonable article. Any more details about the creationist movement itself should be on that page, but I don't see any problem with a brief mention here in the proper context, as long as we aren't actually expressing any creationist views here. --LDC

I'm talking about the two paragraphs that start "Some proponents of creationism...." and the next one "Among laymen, .....". The second one doesn't mention creationism, but is closely linked to it. A quick visual estimate shows that these two paragraphs are about 10% of the total explanation on the page. I think that gives way too much attention to what is, in my opinion, an archaic view held by a minority of the people in a single country on the other side of the world. If we include this, we should probably include large paragraphs about related religious and philosophical views held in China, India, and Africa too. NTF

Stuff that belongs on talk.origins (Creationism and the nature of science)

Ed removed this important sentence, and replaced it with irrelevant nonsense, so I restored it:

It is worth noting that the mechanism (natural selection) is logically independent of the observation that evolution does indeed occur. Thus, a disproof of Darwinism does not in itself disprove the occurrence of evolution which is an observable fact based on evidence from many fields (e.g. embryology?, paleontology, genetics).

Ed, I respect your religious beliefs, and I appreciate that you want to cover them here. Please do so on the pages devoted to those beliefs. But keep your hands off the real science pages which you clearly aren't qualified to edit. A lot of us have spent a lot of time and energy and decades of education and research on these issues, and we don't appreciate that being take lightly by someone who hasn't. --LDC

I guess I'm not clear on whether Natural Selection is (a) what causes the species to come into being or (b) what causes newly arisen species to survive or perish. Make that clear, and I'll fold my hands in prayer :-) --Ed Poor

Perhaps you could read a book about the topic, since you seem very interested in it? Natural selection acts on variations. Over time it results in change. There should be several books at your local bookstore that will explain this far more clearly than any of us here. GregLindahl

Lee, I think it is very impolite to call an edit that you disagree with "vandalism". --AxelBoldt

Yeah, I could take that personally if I weren't such a humble and friendly guy <wink> --Ed Poor

I do get pretty emotional about this topic, but I'm really not a mean guy. "Vandalism" was a bit over the top, so let me amend that to "unjustified removal of important information". The best layman's explanation of the basics of the neo-Darwinian systhesis I've seen is Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker. That's a good start, although a real understanding of the subject requires years of study. --LDC

Added this bit after helpful advice from Greg

It is worth noting that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, hence not a scientific? theory at all, since it includes the claim that God did not intervene in evolutionary history by creating new forms of life. It is held by nearly all biologists, however, for philosophical reasons.

Excuse me? Don't be blaming me for your complete misunderstanding of the issues. Again, I urge you to educate yourself by reading a book on the history of science and philosophy instead of editing articles on Wikipedia. GregLindahl

Removed this:

It is worth noting that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, hence not a scientific theory at all, since it includes the claim that God did not intervene in evolutionary history by creating new forms of life. It is held by nearly all biologists, however, for philosophical reasons.

because the theory of evolution makes no such claims. It doesn't mention God's involvement one way or the other. -BD

Huh? Why is it called "natural" selection if supernatural action could be involved? The whole point of Darwin's theory is to provide an explanation of evolution which requires only natural processes. This is not to insist that the material universe was not created by God, or sustained by him, or that these natural processes do not operate by his power and will, but that divine intervention in violation of these processes is not involved. My objection to the statement is the claim that evolution by natural selection is "not a scientific theory at all", when of course it is. -HWR

What I mean is that the theory of Evolution, by itself, doesn't make a statement equivalent to "God did not create new forms of life." It doesn't say _anything_ about whether God created life forms; the theory of evolution isn't concerned with abiogenesis. However, once those life forms do exist, the theory of evolution describes how they will change over time. This is compatable with the notion that God created the first simple forms of life and they then proceeded to evolve on their own into what we've got today, for example. Not that I believe this myself, I'm personally an atheist, but some people do believe it and the theory of evolution makes no claims about where its "starting material" comes from (God or natural abiogenesis or panspermia or wherever) as long as it's capable of descent with modification. -BD

Lee, I'd like to make a distinction between creationists and other theory of evolution critics.

I regard creationists as merely expressing their religious faith, i.e., their scripture-based belief that God created (a) the Earth and (b) each species of life.
I regard the so-called creation science movement primarily as an attempt to justify and/or spread their religious faith, but
I regard intelligent design adherents as trying to approach the observed facts with an open mind and concluding, "it looks like there would have to be a designer".

Using this model, I would see no point in "rebutting" creationism, as it is merely an expression of theology. We don't rebut the Hindu or Shinto creation stories. As for creation science, I would focus on showing where its adherents cross the line from faith expression into scientific claim and point out any pseudo-science such as unfalsifiable hypotheses or selective use of evidence.

In contrast, I would give intelligent design a more serious look, respecting its self-description as being distinct from creationism and merely examine it on its merits.

Please tell me whether you think this model will be useful. I regard you as the subject matter expert as far as biology and geology goes. I see myself as perhaps being more conversant with the theological beliefs and public policy aims of faith-based organizations.

Ed Poor

Ed, I just do not understand what you are trying to do here. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it has nothing to do with our (meaning, we contributors') opinions; it has to do with our attempts to provide accurate and intelligible accounts of various phenomena, including various debates. I am not trying to use Wikipedia to "rebut" any religion; I am trying to use it to present adequate accounts of various topics of interest to me, including evolution. And as far as this topic goes, by your own definition "creationism" is not "merely an expression of theology." It is making empirical claims, specifically, about how species arise. These claims flat out contradict the claims of science. People are free to reject the empirical evidence, the methods of science, or the epistemoligical principles of science -- but they cannot deny a conflict between this epistemology/method/interpretation of evidence and the claim that God created each species independently. I am not saying that creationism makes a "scientific" claim since its epistemology and methods are not scientific -- but it most definitly is making a claim about the same phenomena science is making a claim about, and creationism's claim and science's claim are in conflict. And OF COURSE other "creationist" claims about the origin of species (such as those of Hindus and Shintos). This is obvious, isn't it? What is your point -- that the article does not single out Hindu and Shinto creationists? Well, honestly, how many Hindus and Shintos are making sustained public efforts to refute scientific models of evolution? In the United States, at least, it isn't really an issue, is it? And by the way, just because Hindus and Shintos have non-Darwinian creation-myths, I would not immediately conclude (as you seem to) that they are reject Darwin. Catholics and Jews read the same book of Genesis that fundamentalist Protestants do -- but this does not mean that they are "creationists." The Catholic Church accepts Darwin's theory of speciation, as do many if not most Jews. The issue is not what the myths sat, but how people interpret them. Slrubenstein

What I'm trying to do here is suggest that the most important contrast is between the accepted scientific theory of evolution and "creation science", rather than between the theory of evolution and "creationism". The only relevant comment from the scientific community in the creationism article should be one or two sentences and a link. It is with so-called "scientific creationism" which makes definite scientific claims that the theory of evolution is best contrasted. That's what I meant. Many religions also believe in life after death, the efficacy of prayer and so on, but we wikipedians don't feel it necessary to rebut those claims, do we?

Again, it is not a question of whether we Wikipedians want to "rebut" those claims, it is whether there is a public debate over these questions that Wikipedia should describe. And I do not think there is any public debate between science and religion over the efficacy of prayer today. I am not sure why -- one reason may be that the public debate over prayer, for constitutional reasons, is focused on whether prayer should be mandated in public schools or not (similarly, by the way, I doubt there would be any manor public debate over creationism versus science were it not for the question of what should be taught in schools; one could construe all or most of these religion vs. secular controversies in terms of educational policy). Another reason could be that a much earlier generation of scientists -- I am thinking of people like Diderot and others at the time of the Enlightenment -- "rebutted" claims about prayer and an afterlife to their own satisfaction. Slrubenstein

I am just trying to re-focus the topics with a view to a possible re-arrangement, as I did (with feedback from Danny and help from Uriyan) with the British Mandate of Palestine. The last thing I'd want to do is somehow use the 'pedia to put the imprimatur on my pet POV on anything. Ed Poor

Okay, Ed, I see it a bit differently. I think the main point of contention between creation scientists and Darwinian scientists is over what "science" is and how it should work; the question of where species come from is a real question, but secondary to this larger question. The main point of contention between creationists and Darwinian scientists is NOT over "what 'science' is" (since creationists as such are not caliming to be ascientific), it is solely over "where do different species come from." Slrubenstein

I changed "the process of microevolution has been put to use in computers..." to "processes of evolution" because "microevolution" is not a process, it describes a scale of change. Mutation and genetic drift are examples of the processes at work, and these are the exact same processes (among others) at work in "microevolution." Slrubenstein

The evolution, theory of evolution, intelligent design, creation science and creationism articles need a major overhaul. I don't know enough about any of these topics to do it by myself. Thanks to all who are devoting so much time to these weighty topics. --Ed Poor

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