Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2008. The result of the discussion was redirect to Evolution of sex.


This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.


I added some information concerning notability. Sashag 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] broken, killed discharged?

In "Receiving the Ecological Information from the Environment", the following is read

First two processes (elimination and discrimination) remove some genotypes from a reproduction pool. The third process (modification), on the contrary, allows some genotypes to survive under the shell of the modified phenotype and to get in genes of posterity.

However, it was succeeded by the following sentence:

That is someone should be broken, killed, discharged, and someone—bended, “educated”, and altered.

Perhaps I'm just stupid in this sense (however, Wikipedia should still be adapted to people like me if that's the case), but I didn't really get the example. Is it a modification to be killed for instance? I moved it here until a little bit more explanation is given. Please fill in, if you are smart in this sense. Mikael Häggström 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First process - elimination - kills Second process - discrimination - damages, discharges some organisms and makes them unable to reproduce. Third process - modification - changes physical characteristics, behavior etc (bend, “educate”, and alter). Sashag 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article problems

It must be remembered that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to explain things to a general readership. In particular, the average user probably has a fairly low reading level and no specialized knowledge. Also this is an English project, so the articles must be in proper English, ideally. This article suffers from several problems:

  • the English is singularly poor
  • the writing is too technically advanced for an Encyclopedia
  • It is poorly wikilinked
  • It does not discuss how this theory relates to competing theories
  • The calculations or arthimetic reasoning is not given in standard algebraic form
  • It does not have an encyclopedic tone
  • The LEAD is fairly inadequate
  • It is a somewhat isolated article with few articles except those of a similar tone linked to it--Filll 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV program and magazine references

Is there any way of verifying if these programs existed? There is no record of them in Google and searching for "Geodakian" at http://www.ntv.ru/ returns no hits. Similarly, the magazine "Russia house" http://www.russiahouse.net/ seems to be a monthly local newspaper published by a travel company. With no archive, is there any way of verifying if these articles ever existed?

As an additional comment, including these kinds of sources does the credibility of the article no good at all. Tim Vickers 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a TV program called "Dialogs" by A. Gordon. There were 3 interviews (Mar, 06, 2002, Apr 15, 2002 and Dec 09, 2003): http://www.ntv.ru/gordon/archive/907/ http://www.ntv.ru/gordon/archive/2256/ http://www.ntv.ru/gordon/archive/20894/ Most effective way will be to follow the links on http://www.geodakian.com/ru/88_Bibliography_ru.htm Clicking on the article title opens text that is stored on the web site. Clicking on the link opens source.Sashag 04:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual dimorphism and selection.

Isn't there any information that sexual dimorphism can be the result of sexual selection and to what extent? Nagelfar 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

The article is less than clear which of its claims are predictions of the hypothesis and which are observations that motivated the hypothesis and which are confirmations discovered after creating the hypothesis. Proper sourcing might help to address this. As the hypothesis is not widely known, rebuttals are unlikely to be found, so perhaps "due weight" considerations would mandate removal of some of the more tangential subsections. WAS 4.250 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)