Encyclopedia > Talk:Evolution

Article Content

Talk:Evolution

Since this talk page has gotten too big to edit for some users, some of the sections are being split off into separate pages:

I deleted the following paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recommend that the reference to biological evolution in the third paragraph be moved to the top of the article, thus firmly establishing biological evolution as the central topic. When I first read the article I found the jumps in historical perspective in the first few paragraphs a bit confusing since it wasn't clear where the article was headed. Otherwise I appreciated the organization, straightforward language, and presentation of differing views. -- Rethunk

I don't agree -- evolution does mean a number of things and the first paragraph provides links to other articles; more importantly, how people (mostly lay-people, but some scientists) talk about Darwin and the evolution of species is colored by the other uses of this word.

As to the question of where the article is headed -- most articles on Wikipedia are works in progress so it is hard to say where any of them are headed. Personally, I would like to see some more discussion in this article of how 19th century non-Darwinian notions of evolution have affected the more general debates about the evolution of species.

The organization of the first three paragraphs do not bother me. But if others agree with Rethunk, I have a counter-proposal: rather than switch whole paragraphs, add another sentence or two to the first paragraph to clarify things, Slrubenstein

The second paragraph on "genetic drift" is very misleading, and suggests that Stephen Jay Gould doesn't believe in evolution at all (which in fact, he's a strong proponent of). David Myers

Hi SLR - I don't think it's so misleading as to require removal. SJG DID believe that natural selection was overrated, and that genetic drift is important... actually I don't really see what the problem with the paragraph is in general. I think it just says what Gould said - natural selection can't adequately explain the development of many traits. Graft

well, okay -- it is easy to revert. But it really needs substantial changes and I propose just re-writing it. Drift is a kind of sampling error and is in no way inconsistent with natural selection; the importance of drift depends heavily on the size of the population and can't be treated as an independent variable. And DM's comment is correct: the passage made Gould look like an anti-evolutionist. In fact, Gould's books are FULL of articles explaining how weird physical features may have been selected for. In fact, I think the SJG example is a poor one: all students of evolution understand that natural selection does not explain everything and that drift is important. Gould is not a tall unique or even extreme in this regard. It is true that he has distinguished himself from others in some ways (e.g. through the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and his notion that evolution acts on species and not just individuals, or even genes) -- but this in my opinion is just not the place to single Gould out. Slrubenstein

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

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

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!