Talk:Evolution (term)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE.


Contents

[edit] Evolution in Chemistry

I have added a chemical definition of evolution as well because I was surprised to see that it didnt exist on wikipedia. Am not a hardcore wikipedian or anything, only a chemist, so I dont know if this definition should have its own article, where it should be linked to etc.. If someone could expand on it, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.242.139 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 October 2006

[edit] Original Evolution text

This is from the original version of the Evolution article. I think it should be folded in:

Generally speaking, evolution is any process of growth, change or development. The word stems from the Latin evolutio meaning "unfolding" and prior to the late 1800s was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." While one can also speak of stellar evolution, cultural evolution or the evolution of an idea, the concept in the 20th century, was largely used in the sense of biological evolution, and refers to the change in the bodyplans of species over time and the appearance of new species. The remainder of this article discusses this concept of biological evolution, which had historically also been called transmutation, and the scientific theory that has developed around it.

--Filll 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] the thread at the talk page for evolution that caused me to create this article copied here

[edit] Complete bias towards biology

Evolution is not the sole domain of biology. On the contrary, both Darwin and Wallace were inspired by Malthus (who is not even mentioned on the page). Malthus was thinking of social and economic evolution, not of biology. The reason evolution is so strongly associated with biology is that it can actually be proven there (yes, I know this is disputed), and both Darwin and Wallace understood that perfectly well. But we have evolutionary economics, evolution of languages, evolution of networks, and many other fields of science where systems evolve by quasi-random generation and selection of individuals. Some of them have nothing to do with the genetic mechanism of evolution--string mutation and crossover--yet they are evolutionary systems by all means. Why then are these systems not discussed under evolution? Why is biological evolution not what it should be - an entry called Biological evolution, just as there is an entry Evolutionary economics? (In fact the entry Biological evolution is a redirect to the entry Evolution.)

So, how are we going to introduce such a fundamental change to a featured article that so happens to be the ideological battlefield of this time? My humble suggestion is to first use the entry Theory of Evolution (which also redirects here) to build the entry that should really be called `evolution', and to say so explicitly in the beginning of both entries. Then, if by common consent the new article has reached the maturity it should have to replace such a fundamental article, we could change the redirects. Any ideas? Nannen 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. See the evolution (disambiguation) article. The decision was made long ago that this, the biological meaning, is far and above the major meaning of the word "evolution" in modern parlance, and thus the appropriate subject for this article. Graft 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Graft here. Whenever anyone mentions evolution by far the most common thing people think of is "biological evolution". --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not true. Just have a look at Merriam-Webster. There, biological evolution is listed as meaning number four, out of a total of six. When people speak of the evolution of a song for example, they do not think of any kind of random cross over between songs, simply because "biological evolution" that is not the major meaning of the word. The modern parlance argument does not hold. Nannen 11:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the obvious consensus here. M-W doesn't rule. And please don't change other user's words. I replaced the ::Yes indeed. in DS comment below and fixed the indentation. Vsmith 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I personally get confused with complex indentations and didn't want to create the impression DS meant my statement and not that of Graft. My apologies to DS. Nannen 13:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes indeed. A minor point: I don't think the Reverend Thomas Malthus was thinking about evolution of any kind, and certainly his Whig followers were very much against both evolutionism and the Radicals who were promoting it to undermine aristocratic society. ....dave souza 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Malthus was not thinking about evolution, not even evolutionary economics. Evolution is not the same thing as the Malthusian problem; it is more of an "answer" to the problem than being the same thing of it. --Fastfission 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a question and a point. First, did Malthus actually use the word "evolution?" (not rhetorical, I do not know). Second, I believe Darwin avoided the word. The reason he did is of historical interest. The fact rememans that encyclopedias distinguish between words as used colloquially and as terms of art (or as scientific concepts). When people talk about a quantum difference or quantum leap in ordinary conversation, they actually mean close to the opposite of what scientists mean. And dictionaries should acknowledge that. But this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Encycdlopedias are not compendia of words and how all people use them. They are compendia of accumulated knowledge. It's apples and oranges. Today, people use the word "evolution" in many ways, but the most common understanding of evolution is the theory of the evolution of species. I agree that there are other uses of evolution among scientists (e.g. stellar evolution) which is why we have diambiguation pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The concept of evolution itself also evolved, and Malthus had an early and important part in it. If I remember correctly, the concept of natural selection is strongly associated with his name. Other scientists contributed or refined fundamental evolutionary concepts like trait, inheritance, mutation, fitness, genotype, phenotype and so on. It is a fundamental mistake to attribute the theory of evolution to any one particular scientist or instance in time. This is one of the reasons why I need an entry about evolution in general, to sort these things out. To discuss Malthus in the context of biology is really not serving the topic. Nannen 13:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Maybe I should make the problem more precise: I usually have to do with evolution in two contexts, both of which have little to do with biological evolution: natural languages and economic innovation. Some colleagues of mine are physicists and use evolution in yet another nonbiological way. There is quite a body of theory and thought behind this broader scientific view on evolution where biological evolution would be just another case, but certainly not the dominating one. The annoying thing is that there is no entry where you can formulate this broader view on evolution as both the terms 'evolution' and 'theory of evolution' are taken by 'biological evolution'. Even more annoying, wikipedia suggests that evolution and biological evolution are effectively the same, which is just not true. And it is really not sufficient to discuss evolution as used in the context of languages and economic innovations in their respective entries, as suggested by the use of the disambiguation advocates. Each of these entries, like biological evolution, should not need to discuss the concept of evolution any further than is needed for the field, and then refer to the broad entry. And this broad entry should certainly not define evolution in the narrow biological sense of mutation, random cross over and natural selection, because that is not how languages and economic innovations evolve.
What I request for now is to use the entry Theory of evolution, which unfortunately also redirects to biological evolution, to discuss the broader concept. First, because the redirect is really not justified, and second in order to avoid a ridiculous entry like. Evolution for Non-Biologists. Nannen 13:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Nannen, first of all, I would like to suggest that you properly research such matters as Malthus' role in the history of evolutionary thought before bringing them to the table, at the very least before making the second comment here. Malthus was concerned mostly with population growth, and it is in that context that his name is still used - Malthusian fitness, Malthusian growth curves etc.
Second, calling it biological evolution is not justified exactly because evolution is relevant to psychology and biochemistry, and because essentially the same principles apply in evolutionary programming/genetic algorithms and related biotechnology applications.
To my mind, this article does succeed in discussing the principles of natural selection in broader terms (random variation, at least partly heritable, selection, reconstitution of variation etc. ad infinitum), while also keeping the meaning strict. In all ages, people have tried to link their own research to appealing principles borrowed from related sciences. Hence, too many things nowadays have illegitimately taken on the label "nanotechnology". Well, same with evolution, and I think that Wikipedia is playing a much-needed and exemplary role in preserving the strict meaning of evolution.
You may want to have a look at this. Now, to anticipate any further discussion that may arise from perusing the aforementioned source, we talk about evolution rather than natural selection to acknowledge the occasional role of genetic drift in (trying to avoid the word) heritable change between generations. - Samsara 19:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I created Evolution (term). Maybe it will help with Nannen's concerns. Aplace he can work out an article on the term itself, its useage, the evolution of the use of the term, and so on. As for a "broader theory", well, when ripe, it can be removed from Evolution (term) and given its own article. WAS 4.250 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(There were a couple more comments added to this discussion at its original location after it was copied to here. )


[edit] Proposed Sharpening of Wikipedia Use of "Evolution"

[edit] Normative vs. Descriptive Use of "Evolution"

Descriptively, the use of the term "evolution" in society at large is becoming hopeless. I hope that we can have some influence on sharpening up the use of the term, while at the same time including a useful and complete range of applications of the concept. The term is very useful outside the realm of biology: in economics (especially in the discussion of industries with many firms), in the discussion of technological artifacts (in archaeology, history, economics, anthropology), in language, and in chemistry, in the discussion of the mechanics of the development of individuals that are made up of evolving populations of cells and intercellular connections (evo-devo).

It seems seriously wrong to achieve precision in the article by focusing exclusively on the neo-darwinian synthesis in biology at the same time that the concept of evolution is being fruitfully applied outside biology and the use of the term "evolution" in the life sciences is being broadened to include non-genetic evolution. (See "Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life", Jablonka and Lamb (2005).)

I am concerned to avoid over-prescription, but find the various articles using the term evolution confusing and constricting. I found no sharp reference to emerging uses of the term.

[edit] Principles for the Scope of "Evolution"

Here are the principles I would like to have applied to the use of the term "evolution" in Wikipedia (shortly followed by Earth, then the galaxy):

First of all, shouldn't we favor uses of the term "evolution" that relate to the change that takes place in a relatively homogeneous population of entities ? This would mean discouraging use of the term to include other kinds of views change, learning, and development that principally are viewed as affecting an individual member of the population.

Secondly, shouldn't we limit the use of the term to change in populations that are characterized by some kind of replication process. Individuals would have to have a fairly well defined identity. It would also be necessary that one individual was clearly connected to the creation of other individuals, in the sense of strongly influencing the configuration of the "replicates".

Thirdly, we need to have some signficant chance of meaningful variation in the characteristics of the individuals before and after replication. Perfect copies are not usually very interesting.

Fourthly, we need a process of selection among the variants. Natural selection has been the predominant form. Darwin did use the "unnatural selection" by dog and pigeon breeders and plant propagators to provide examples of more rapid selection. It is only a matter of point of view whether intervention by individuals of some other species is "natural".

These principles are slight generalizations of Maynard Smith's (Problems of Biology, 1986). The biggest difference is that he clearly talks about heritability, whereas I have a weaker concept of "strong influence" of "ancestor" individuals on the replicas.

[edit] Applying These Principles

Many popular uses of the term refer to change in an individual entity (person, organization, society, economy, ecology). They violate the first principle. These ought to be beyond the pale. There is no particular explanatory power to the term "evolution" in these cases. "Learning", "development", "change" seem adequate. This ought to be the least controversial element of my proposal. It would, in principle, affect Wiktionary, the design of the disambiguation page for "evolution", and ALL uses of the term evolution everywhere in Wikipedia. I would be happy with the first two, of course.

I don't think that "stellar evolution" would fit this definition, because I don't think that it has the second element: "replication". I will investigate this further, but welcome any knowledgeable comments. If I am correct, then it would be useful to clarify that "stellar evolution" is not "real" evolution in the sense that it is a non-standard use of the term.

I think that some parts of what is studied in "chemical evolution" COULD be "real" evolution, but I simply don't know enough and haven't investigated.

User:DCDuring 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but it is not up to you or me to decide how society, culture or group has decided at any point in time to use a word. It is what it is. And the main use of evolution at the moment is as a shorthand description of "theory of evolution", which is currently a modified version of the modern synthesis. Evolution of course has many other uses, which is what this article is about, and the disambiguation page Evolution (disambiguation) as well. We are not here to influence the language or culture or society at large, or change their usage.--Filll 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that we certainly are out to improve the world, especially by reducing confusion. I was trying to lay out a coherent point of view that made some sense of things, that was based on the standard use of the term, but left room for the steadily broadening application of the term outside the biological arena. Since everyone's contributions include value judgments, I thought I would make mine explicit. Please note that I have confined my contribution to the Talk page of a discussion about a term. My reference to galactic change was to suggest that I might be inclined to limit my scope to less than the entire universe at least. My hope is that in an encyclopedia, at least, it would be possible to provide some clarification and keep up with the, ahem, evolution of the meaning of the term. DCDuring 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talk • contribs)

[edit] An Illustration of Confusion

In some fields (organization theory, for example), evolution is used to refer to three distinct kinds of change processes:

1. change in the characteristics of a population of organizations,

2. undesigned change of a single organization, and

3. designed change of a single organization.

The first usage is close to the biological concept. The latter usages are closer to the concept of learning. DCDuring 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)