Talk:Evolution: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:49, 27 January 2010

Skip to table of contents

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions are rephrased objections to evolution that users have argued should be included in the text of Evolution. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to evolution, to be interjected into a science article like Evolution.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?

A1: This is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth.

Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Rejection of evolution by religious groups give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not.

Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID.^[1] In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.^[2]

Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Wikipedia's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones.

Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?

A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact.

Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well supported it is.

When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?

A4: Once again, this depends on how one is defining the terms proof and proven. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to an argument or demonstration showing that a proposition is completely certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to the establishment and accumulation of experimental evidence to a degree at which it lends overwhelming support to a proposition. Therefore, a proven proposition in the mathematical sense is one which is formally known to be true, while a proven proposition in the more general sense is one which is widely held to be true because the evidence strongly indicates that this is so ("beyond all reasonable doubt", in legal language).

In the first sense, the whole of evolutionary theory is not proven with absolute certainty, but there are mathematical proofs in evolutionary theory. However, nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on a finite set of facts that have been studied relative to the unproven assumptions of things stirring in the infinite complexity of the world around us. Evolutionary science pushes the threshold of discovery into the unknown. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Absolute proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence, but rather on definition.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

A5: Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales.^[3] However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies.^[4] A famous experiment was developed in 1992 that traced bacterial evolution with precision in a lab. This experiment has subsequently been used to test the accuracy and robustness of methods used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of other organisms with great success.^[5]^[6] Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas,^[7] in the Italian Wall Lizard,^[8] and in Darwin's finches.^[9]

Scientists have observed significant changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution.^[3] So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?

A6: The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different timescales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much.

A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?

A7: To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution:

There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough.
There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Furthermore, technically all fossils are transitional fossils, because no species is fixed and unchanging. For example, you can argue that Homo erectus is a transitional fossil between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis. But in the same line of thought, you can say Homo habilis is a transitional fossil between A. afarensis and Homo erectus, and so on.^[10]^[11]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium".
Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life.^[12]^[13]
Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.
Both the vertebrate eye and the bacterial flagellum are well understood to have evolved from simpler structures. Indeed, simpler eye-like structures (such as the sea squirt's ocellus) can still be found in existing species.^[14] Complex biological traits can also evolve as exaptations, where ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new functions. "Irreducible complexity" is, in any case, neither a scientific concept nor a coherent argument: A less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.^[15]^[16]
Evolution can't create new information.
New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935.^[17]^[18]

With regard to the Wikipedia Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.

Q8: How could life arise by chance?

A8: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life any more than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties—the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

Why isn't there a section on Criticism of Evolution ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.76.170.2 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts, and read the FAQ at the top of this page. garik (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered in the Social and Cultural Response where it talks about religious criticisms. There are great debates in Evolution theory (which would be nice to have a section) but there are no "scientific" criticisms of Evolution per se. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's what i was going to say: because there are none. (no valid/meaningful ones, that is. but why would we count invalid/meaningless ones? "the moon circles the earth. ya, but frogs are green! what?!?!" = not considered an argument. unless we're going to start including dr. suess quotes in every article...) Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, find me a good reliable source demonstrating scientifically that all offspring of all species are exact replicas of their ancestors both in genotype and phenotype and i will BEG for it's inclusion in the article. Kevin Baas^talk 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting posit?? Pineapples are clonally maintained and so should have the same genotype and phenotype. Remnant populations of species of Australian sandalwood no longer reproduce sexually and are now asexually clonally maintained by root suckers. I wonder how living fossils which maintain the same phenotype for millions of years would fit with genotype change? Interesting post anyways. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there's this weird small translucent aquatic organism that reproduces pretty much by cloning, and it's been evolving for millions of years on genetic mutation alone. unfortunately i forgot the name. i do recall something about scientists being curious how it could survive so long without genetic cross-over and with such a high risk of genetic regression / decay. and i think it was something i saw on t.v. years ago. anycase, it still "evolved", albeit very slowly, even though the offspring were all clones. Kevin Baas^talk 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bdelloid rotifers don't reproduce sexually but display variation and diversity. Horizontal gene flow and gene duplications and mutations prevent Muller's ratchet phenomenon. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one(s) I was thinking of. I remember them saying they were "rotifiers" now and the pictures resemble what i saw in my visual memory. And you were spot on w/Muller's ratchet, though i didn't know what it was called. (as a programmer i'd just as soon call it "bit rot") Impressive. Kevin Baas^talk 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on a science-based subject. There is no valid scientific criticism of the concept or existence of a process of biological evolution. There are criticisms of the various theories of evolution, but that is an entirely different matter, as this article is not about theories of evolution per se. The only criticisms of evolution itself are of a fundamentalist theological nature and which, being contrary to the nature which the fundamentalists contend was created by God, serves merely to undermine a) their grasp of science, b) the veracity of their faith and c) respect for, and promotion of, the belief systems to which they adhere. --JohnArmagh (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ya, put otherwise, "evolution" is empirical. like sand. we would not put in the "sand" article "criticisms of sand", now would we? (sometimes its hot and it burns my feet...) It's amazing we give the opposition as much credit as we do. If it weren't for history, i suppose we wouldn't mention that the earth was once thought to be flat... but you see, again, that's an empirical matter. we're talking about what you see and hear with your eyes and your ears. we can talk about beliefs elsewhere. Kevin Baas^talk 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the unhelpful responses that amout to "all criticism of evolution is invalid", the real reason is that criticism sections are discouraged in all articles. It is perfectly alright to include critical responses in other sections. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even an article such as Objections to evolution. Tmol42 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the FAQ at the top of the page and it turns out that "the real reason" (according to it) is actually precisely what we said it was in out "unhelpful responses"., and not because "criticism sections are discouraged in all articles" (which i doubt). Kevin Baas^talk 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRITS point to the issues with "criticism sections" which are essentially a matter of making sure they don't introduce a NPOV problem. Which may explain why there isn't a section on Criticism of Electricity or a section on Criticism of Gravity in the relevant articles. . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add a message to the edit page for this article and the talk page, much like the one for BLPs, saying something like "If you wish to add or remove content from this article, or start a new topic on the discussion page, please see the FAQs, which provide explanation as to why certain additions have been deemed inappropriate to include in this particular article. This especially applies to topics regarding subjects such as objections to evolution and others which are not directly relevant to the science of the subject, or which express a belief or point of view." While this is unlikely to deter people such as the user who posted "ATHIEST PROTECTIONISM???", I think it would reduce the numbers of these "zombie arguments", (from people such as this user) which seem to come up very often. It could also be used for other similarly misused articles. I think this would be more effective than the "important notice" at the top, as people would have to see it. It's just a suggestion though. Jhbuk (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. sounds like something for the Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Kevin Baas^talk 18:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps even a mention that the majority of christians believe in evolution (although a theistic version much like Francis Collins)and that only fundamentalist christians and muslims (Islam doesn't have a problem with evolution either)seem to have a problem. Although I don't know if this would be like throwing water or gasoline on the subject. hee,hee,hee. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...or water on a gas fire. Kevin Baas^talk 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't any real scientific criticisms of evolution, it is almost exclusively religious (with some logic thrown in). Unfortunately, by definition, religious POV are pretty difficult to engage with. 'God exists' 'How do you know this?' 'Leap of faith'. Of course, if you really extend Cartegian Evil Demon theory, perhaps all evidence of evolution is a strange and complicated hoax made by God just in order for us to be tempted to doubt His word, which could be used to legitimately destroy all scientists and intellectuals (in a Maoist Great Leap Forward?) But science, by its nature, has to test its hypotheses with the most rigorous (even if silly) criticism.--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I stay out of Vietnam now. Nobody can agree here. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! How about the second law of thermodynamics? That eats evolution for breakfast! --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_violates_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics Guettarda (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put in it's proper relation, the second law of thermodynamics is what drives evolution. (consider mutation, cross-over, natural selection, etc.) I think your criticism is more appropriately targeted at life (and in particular its ability to mantain form and function in spite of dissipation), for which I would refer you to Ilya Prigogine's book on "Dissipative Structures". Kevin Baas^talk 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't cover it. The solar system is a very isolated system. What about chromosome reproduction? Animals with different chromosomes 99.9% they can't reproduce. Puts a hole in evoltution. Or birds with useless wings? How about that? Why did they evolve to have useless wings? Does that make them more adaptable to their environment? --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continuing to violate WP:TALK would you care to discuss how you would like to improve the article? If you don't, you run the risk of your posts being deleted. Shot info (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am only trying to say that there is criticism. He is inferring that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary, and that is wrong. --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to provide reliable sources and specific proposals for edits, as required by WP:TALK. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum, you're evidently commenting in the wrong place. Fail again, and this section can get archived. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ad hominem. Even if the average hobo raises a question about evolution that is valid, it should go under criticism. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1 Have a source raising questions. I am not debating, I am pointing out holes that should be included. --EnderWiggin1 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're being polite and going out of your way to find sources leads me to believe you're acting in good faith. Nonetheless, you need to inform yourself about Wikipedia and evolution a lot more before you continue with this discussion. As far as informing yourself about how Wikipedia operates, I would suggest reading this link which talk about reliable sourcing. Obviously anyone can post anything they want to a forum, so the reliable part is important. As far as informing yourself about evolution, I had a quick look at the objections mentioned in the forum post you linked to, and can I just suggest you read objections to evolution, an article we have already have? As far as the first objection in that forum post goes too, we have evolution of birds. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those "holes" aren't holes at all. That's why Wikipedia requires reliable sources, so nonsense like that doesn't get in. thx1138 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above Top Secret is hardly a reliable source and per WP:Undue the average person's opinion or crackpot conspiracy theory doesn't merit mention. There is an objections_to_Evolution for you to view if you'd like to see the objections / criticisms. Or you could just go over to conservapedia.Nefariousski (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a.k.a. propagandapedia. Kevin Baas^talk 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, judging by your comment "I am only trying to say that there is criticism. He is inferring that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary", I think you missed my comment: "Put in it's proper relation, the second law of thermodynamics is what drives evolution. (consider mutation, cross-over, natural selection, etc.) I think your criticism is more appropriately targeted at life (and in particular its ability to mantain form and function in spite of dissipation), for which I would refer you to Ilya Prigogine's book on "Dissipative Structures"." Point of that is that entropy, far from being "scientific evidence to the contrary", is in fact the fuel that makes the whole thing work. So whatever you heard / want to put in is just logically incorrect. A good example of why we require reliable sources - 'cause not everyone can figure that out all the time. Kevin Baas^talk 14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore (beyond the "no scientific evidence" misinterpretation / straw man), you are not "only trying to say that there is criticism". You are trying to say that this particular criticism is valid and furthermore that it should be in this particular article. A point which is in contention on multiple fronts. As others have pointed out, multiple wikipedia policies prohibit it, quite irrespective of the feelings and opinions of any of us. Kevin Baas^talk 15:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore you missed that this page is not about the scientific theory(ies) explaining "evolution". This is about the observable changes in life over generations. Like you not being an exact clone of your mother / father. For further clarification on that, see the FAQ at the top of this page. Kevin Baas^talk 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I move to archive this discussion. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Social and Cultural Responses

Great article - it is well written, interesting and to the best of my knowledge factual.
Only complaint is this sentance on Social Darwinism.

"Another example associated with evolutionary theory that is now widely regarded as unwarranted is misnamed "Social Darwinism," a term given to the 19th century Whig Malthusian theory developed by Herbert Spencer into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and by others into claims that social inequality, sexism, racism, and imperialism were justified."

It reads poorly, escpecially when compared to the rest of the article. Maybe some one can break it up into two sentances or re-write it to make it clearer AIRcorn (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've tried re-writing this. Any comments on the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better AIRcorn (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the rewrite depicted "social Darwinism" as though it were a coherent movement, when the label was coined by Richard Hofstadter as a term of abuse for capitalist greed and social ideas predating Darwin. It is commonly used to misrepresent Spencer's ideas, and note that he was a sociologist and philosopher, not a politician. Have had another go at clarifying it, but the original seems to have covered the main points reasonably well. This blog source gives some explanations, tho note that in OtOOS races refers to cabbages as much as to pigeons. . dave souza, talk 05:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to go back to the original but make it a bit clearer AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix

I suggest removing the link to the "appendix" as a vestigal organ. As mentioned on the page for the appendix, new theories suggest it functions as part of the immune system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statr (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of the new research, but not familiar with it or the level of support it is receiving from the scientific community. If it has already become the dominant view within the scientific community, then it should be changed as you suggest. However, if it has little support and is too controversial at this time, the changes you suggest would give undue weight to this research. Anyone familiar with this line of research and the response of the scientific community could make a better decision than I. This is just something to consider before making the suggested changes. –Visionholder (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it retains some function, it's still vestigial. thx1138 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's photie

From an edit at Charles Darwin, I've been reminded that the image here is a cropped version of the photograph in File:Charles Darwin seated.jpg which is dated to circa 1854, as shown on the description of that image and in Charles Darwin: a life in pictures. I've adjusted the caption, as conveniently it was in 1864 that Darwin finished his barnacles and took up full time work on species, starting the writings eventually trimmed to an abstract and published as the Origin. Have also changed the statement about Lamarck having wide influence to make it clear that his evolutionary influence was limited to radicals like Grant, and was rejected by the mainstream in France as well as in Britain. Of course Lamarck did have influence with his taxonomy of invertebrates, but not so much with his transmutation ideas. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scribbles

Some words in the picture on the top are scribbles that can't be read.

173.183.79.69 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous[reply]

Try looking at [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a scientific fact and Creationism is a religious myth?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI it is called the Theory of evolution. Project Gnome (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact:-) See below... dave souza, talk 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to using Wikipedia in this way (actually trying to contribute as apposed to just being a viewer). Nevertheless I'm going to dive right in. I noticed that, as the subject/headline states, Evolution is being considered a scientific fact and Creationism a religious belief or myth. I think this is incorect and should be modified, first of all "Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." -Henry Morris Ph.D. (1) Secondly Creationism is scientific since, "Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”" (2) And Creationism does exactly that from the perspective that the world was created, usually by a Diety.

I apologize for mistakes I've probably made in ignorance and am open to criticism and discussion. I suspect this has probably also been brought up before in the past. And I'm a little confused by, "...and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes..." Since no one seems to do that... (Edit: Interesting how the tildes work, please disregard the comment about them.)

-Ian Smith, Sunday, January 24th, 2010, 9:02PM Eastern Standard Time (-5 GMT).

Scarch (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1)http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/ (2)http://www.gotquestions.org/creationism-scientific.html

You are using creationist sources - hardly reliable unfortunately. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. As noted above your information comes from highly unreliable sources. Please read both articles (Evolution and Creationism) and their respective FAQs at the top of their Talk Pages (at the top of this very page for the evolution one). After that you will have a much better handling on both subjects. On a personal note I recommend you to start reading some popular scientific literature about evolution starting with the very simple but informative booklet by the National Academy of Sciences (The most prestigious science body in the world) called Science, Evolution, and Creationism (This is just a intro brochure, the full text is in the link ahead) and its companion "Evolution in Hawaii: A Supplement to Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" both available as free pdfs here and here respectively --LexCorp (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Ph.D. is not reliable? All I extracted from those sources were two quotes anyway. And you did not adress the questions I raised. Thank you though for the advice, I have read some of both articles, but have not read them in their entirety. I will read more of them periodically, and thank you for the book suggestion. Honestly I must admit I have not read Darwin's Origin of Species yet either.

Scarch (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A PhD doesn't mean one is right about everything, or anything for that matter. A PhD in civil engineering certainly provides no expertise on evolutionary biology or geology. Auntie E. (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above (I hate edit conflicts and my slow writing) Ph.D are not as reputable as they were once, when education was more or less a privilege. Nowadays it is a prerequisite of any research profession so obtaining one is really the beginning of the profession. Also relevant is the type of Ph.D and the subject of the thesis being awarded. No much use as a reliable source on evolution if you got a Ph.D in Ancient History for "Medical remedies at the Roman forts along the Hadrian's wall". I would not recommend reading Darwin's Origin of Species as a source of understanding Evolution. The book is quite old and its information very dated. There has been 150 years of research and discoveries since its publication. The NAS booklets contains a much better and up-to-date "further reading" section. Also a favourite of mine is Cesare Emiliani's. Planet Earth : Cosmology, Geology, & the Evolution of Life & the Environment. This is a somewhat advanced (university entry level) book on all the sciences pertaining to evolution. I recomend this 'couse learning evolution apart from all other earth sciences is quite ridiculous given that evolution draws evidence from all of them. The full info is:

Emiliani, Cesare. (1992). Planet Earth : Cosmology, Geology, & the Evolution of Life & the Environment. Cambridge University Press. (Paperback Edition ISBN 0-521-40949-7)

IMHO reading Darwin's Origin of Species is only useful as historical perspective of the origin of evolution and not really useful to learn or study evolution proper. Remember that genes and DNA were still unknown at the time and most other sciences were at their infancy so the level of their understanding of the word to us, 150 years later, seem childlike in many ways.--LexCorp (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to addressing your specific point. The sources you quote are wrong in their assertions. Both articles, their Faqs and the NAS booklet will inform you as to why they are wrong.--LexCorp (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you are new to WP. I would say that it is common usage to put the signature immediately after your comment. No need to add a separate line. In fact some users will request you to follow such convention when engaging in the talk pages as it reduces confusion in long and populous discussions.--LexCorp (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A PhD doesn't mean one is right about everything, or anything for that matter." I am aware of this. But on what ground are you dismissing my source? My source says as I quoted origionally, "Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." Do you deny this? Can you find a single source that actually tests evolution? Or that says something can be a scientific fact even if it isn't demonstratable?

I want to read Darwin's Origin of Species primarily for the historical perspective of the origin of evolution.

I should check out the FAQs, what's the NAS booklet?

The thing is, I was only showing where I extracted my quotes from. My point still stands, evolution is not even a hypothesis, and Creationism is not a myth. The main articles should be edited to reflect this. Aren't they both fields of study in science? Scarch (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAS booklet -->National Academy of Sciences (NAS) booklet called "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" as described in my above comment.--LexCorp (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am aware of this. But on what ground are you dismissing my source? My source says as I quoted origionally, "Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." Do you deny this?" Scarch, your source may or may not make such a claim, but unless it was part of the conclusion of a scientific paper, and clearly justified based on the evidence presented within, then this quote and others like it cannot be presented here as anything more than opinion. Opinion is not particularly good evidence even when it is the opinion of a relevant expert. In this specific case, it is arguable that the quote is not even the opinion of a scientist. It is the opinion of a hydraulic engineer, who may or may not be a scientist in either a philosophical or professional sense. Whether Morris is a scientist or not, he is certainly not an expert in a relevant field, such as chemistry, biology or geology. His personal opinion, presented as a quote, has no relevance at all to the science of evolution.DoktorDec (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr... edit conflict. My reply is below, but I should also note that many of the PhDs that argue against evolution got their degrees in religious or philosophical studies. And, of course, they usually won't tell you what their PhD is in, but will start reciting literature from the field of evolutionary biology, obviously with the intent of implying that they come from the field. Sorry, no source for that, just a lot of personal experience. Anyway...

Scarch: No, the main article should not be edited to reflect this because your point is wrong. It has already been stated above, but I will repeat: Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. It will address your concerns. That's why it's there... so we can avoid lengthy discussions like this.

To address your sources, the first source plays off the colloquial sense of the word "believe" and how scientists and every-day supporters casually demonstrate their support of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not a belief system. There is plenty of data to back it up, which you would know if you'd spend more time looking at science sources instead of creationist sources. The rest of that article was addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page, as previously stated. Your second source clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is when it states: "Creationism, like naturalism, can be "scientific," in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered "scientific" in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other." If something is not falsifiable or predictive, then it is not science. Thus Creationism is not science. Naturalism is a philosophy/principle (not a scientific hypothesis) that underlies modern science, dictating that hypotheses should be tested by reference to natural causes with observable effects. Evolution, either by natural selection, genetic drift, etc., is falsifiable and predictive and it has been tested. Again, see the FAQ at the top of the page. –Visionholder (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once creationists do some experiments to test their ideas, they will become scientists. But not before. Can you suggest an experiment to test the hypothesis that God created the world? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you look at the Creation Myth article to get an understanding of the formal definition of the term before you assume it's being used in an informal / negative manner. Nefariousski (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither Creationists or Evolutionists can prove how everything began. Because in order to prove a hypothesis the experiment must be observable, repeatable, and measurable.

So...until evolutionists "do some experiments to test their ideas, they will become scientists." Can you suggest an experiment to test the hypothesis that life happened by chance?

As for me...I have enough evidence to prove that life was not created by chance.

All life has design.

For example: the bird...Tell me how many billions of years did it take the bird to figure out that in order to fly; they need hollow bones, feathers, and an aerodynamic body?

It is only logical to believe that some powerful being, AKA GOD created everything, rather than something coming to life out of an inorganic substance. Use your brain! Even the mind is far too complex to be created by chance...

Project Gnome (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of our knowledge, birds still haven't figured that stuff out. Ben (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol...I will admit birds aren't that bright...Hence being called a bird brain does not imply that one is all that smart :D

Project Gnome (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you've ably expressed a widespread religious view, in science it's correct to view evolution as theory and fact. However, this page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, so the conversation can't be continued here. Enjoy the complexity, dave souza, talk 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr... edit conflicts every time I try to post. Anyway, I was going to say to Project Gnome: Once again, read the FAQ at the top of the page. Argument from ignorance don't prove the existence of any deity, nor do they disprove that life could have arisen by chance. And anyway, the origins of life are not part of evolutionary theory since it deals only with existing life. And the bird's adaptations for flight did not occur entirely by chance, they occurred by natural selection. But if you had read the FAQ, you would know that. –Visionholder (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we try renaming it to "Evolutionism as theory-ist and fact-ist" to potentially increase readership ? Bigger fonts ? Free gifts if you read it ? We're missing something obvious. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI The problem is that Creationism and Evolution are not logical alternatives to one another. Neither one on its own excludes the possibility of the other. Any perceived discrepancy between the two concepts is based upon a misunderstanding of their relation to one another. Creationism is an understanding/belief/theory that concerns Why. Evolution is an understanding/belief/theory that concerns How. Each is it's own argument, and neither can be logically used in order to contradict the other. Any argument between them is a bogus one conceived by Satan. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested." Do you deny this? Can you find a single source that actually tests evolution? - I'll bite - yes, I can find one easily. Neil Shubin used phylogentic trees and some rudimentary knowledge of geology to predict where he could find a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods. He spent 3 years digging on Elsemere island and voilà - he found what he was looking for, Tiktaalik. Evolution passed his test. Just because someone claims that there's no way to test evolution doesn't make it so. It just tells you that person making the statement lacks imagination, knowledge of the subject, or both. Raul654 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if the person continues to make such statements after being corrected (as most outspoken creationism pushers do), they probably lack honesty as well. Project Gnome, you really need to get some better sources. - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. Oh, and please read the FAQs at the top of the respective pages. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evolutionary novelties

Excellent Current Biology review out today Evolutionary novelties Günter P. Wagner and Vincent J. Lynch. I'll mull over how to work it into this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also a PNAS issue devoted to Evolution in Health and Medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Question

Input needed. Please follow-up on my talk page if that is more appropriate. (discussion not related specifically to this article). Ken Ham's Book Evolution Exposed magically appeared in high school library. Sadly we now have three books on evolution ... Origins ... BeHe's and now Kens. Question to which I can't seem to find the answer. Is it formally classified as a science book or is it classified as religion? Thanks and apologies for the "blog-like" intrusion. --JimmyButler (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - just read archived post above. I guess we may all be interested in seeing how the library systems classify its contents! And Wikipedia is not a "formum" so talk page if you know the answer. Cheers--JimmyButler (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:JimmyButler. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol...Why not let us debate?

One of the greatest things about science is conflicting ideas and theories...If everyone thought the same way, we would not have any of the technologies, that we have today...The Greeks built their entire society around education and research...and the Greeks spent a vast portion of their time debating...So my question is, "Why not let us debate...just as long as we don't attack each other, rather than each other's beliefs."

NOTE: An example of a poor debater, is one who can not differentiate an opposing debater, from his/her opposing idealism.

Suggestion: It is always unwise to attack a person directly, because they will tune out everything you say...and you cannot change someone who does not have an open mind.

Apology: Sorry, if I have caused any trouble...I just love debating, that's all...I'm not trying to get everyone mad, I just wanna force people into thinking rather than believing what they have been taught. (I, myself, have doubted creationism in the past...but after assessing the evidence, I don't see any way that evolution could explain the complexity of anything form of life.)

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."

Adolf Hitler

Personal Note: Once again...I'm not trying to insult anyone...but rather consider the logic and reason behind their faith... 99.169.91.224 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a chat room. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk.origins is an excellent place to participate in the evolution-creation debate. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty...Midly Mad..and I'll stop debating on talk pages.

Note:I always thought talk pages also had to do with talking about the article, rather than just suggesting stuff to change <:)

"If at all possible, Can someone add a Debate Tab for wiki pages?" Because that would be allot of fun :D Sincerely, Project Gnome

[1] See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.

[2] As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

[OriginOfWhales-3] The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

[4] Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.

[Hillis92-5] DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.

[Crandall94-6] Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.

[7] Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.

[8] Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.

[9] Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.

[10] Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.

[11] Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?

[crutch-12] Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.

[13] Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[14] Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976

[15] Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.

[16] Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.

[17] Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.

[18] "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

@@ Line 288: / Line 288: @@
 : Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTFORUM|not a chat room]].  Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 :[http://www.talkorigins.org/ talk.origins] is an excellent place to participate in the evolution-creation debate. [[User:Mildly Mad|Mildly Mad]]<sup>[[User talk:Mildly Mad|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Mildly_Mad|C]]</sub> 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
+::Ty...Midly Mad..and I'll stop debating on talk pages.
+::Note:I always thought talk pages also had to do with ''talking'' about the article, rather than just suggesting stuff to change <:)
+'''"If at all possible, Can someone add a ''Debate Tab'' for wiki pages?"'''
+Because that would be allot of fun :D
+Sincerely, Project Gnome