Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
[[User:John.r.r|John.r.r]] ([[User talk:John.r.r|talk]]) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) |
[[User:John.r.r|John.r.r]] ([[User talk:John.r.r|talk]]) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Can you elucidate what sort of changes you'd like to see made, rather than waste people's time venting your spleen?--[[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]] ([[User talk:Apokryltaros|talk]]) 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC) |
:Can you elucidate what sort of changes you'd like to see made, rather than waste people's time venting your spleen?--[[User:Apokryltaros|Mr Fink]] ([[User talk:Apokryltaros|talk]]) 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
::: I thought it was against the rules to be rude. I think they should block you, |
|||
[[User:John.r.r|John.r.r]] ([[User talk:John.r.r|talk]]) 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:23, 28 August 2015
Evolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
|
Index 2003–2005 2006
2007
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Life originated through common descent"
Hi everyone. This phrase sounds to me like common descent was the mechanism of how life originated, rather than a description of what happened afterwards; is there a better way this could be written? I've been trying to figure out a way to do it while still keeping the term "common descent" in the sentence but haven't been able to think of anything yet. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Should be "the diversity of life originated through common descent"--Mr Fink (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Mr. Fink. It should read "diversity", and it would conflate issues-the origin of life and evolution. Abiogenesis is just one published theory of the origin of life (so Neutrality shouldn't let that one idea dominate) , and generally it is agreed that all present life evolved from the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The current wording ("The current diversity of life has arisen by common descent from a last universal ancestor") remains quite awkward. First and most importantly, common descent implies a common ancestor, so the phrase "common descent" is just redundant. Second, there's something a bit odd about using an indefinite article to refer to the single common ancestor. Finally, "arose" would be preferable to "has arisen". So how about something like the following?
- The current diversity of life on earth does not reflect multiple origins, but rather common descent from an ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.
- I think that keeps everything in without the same sort of redundancy, flows a lot better, and makes clear the point that's being made about common descent. Alternatively, if people are happy to drop the phrase "common ancestor", which isn't doing anything but provide a link to that article, we could have: "The current diversity of life on earth arose from a single ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago" (we could even link "arose from a single ancestor" to common descent, though it doesn't follow WP:LINKCLARITY quite as well). Garik (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) revised by Garik (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the following would be preferable to the shorter (and probably the longer) version I suggested above: "All of life on earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago." Garik (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Gene flow
The current form of the article has two sections named "Gene flow", one under Variation and one under Mechanisms. Should one of these be renamed slightly? (Yes, but how?) - dcljr (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
FA
Due to the obvious controversy of this topic; why is this a 'featured article'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.162.181 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because it quite excellently covers the topic, hopefully educating the scientifically ignorant. --NeilN talk to me 16:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- ,ec>Because controversy is no bar to featured status. Also, please stop removing things from articles like "20 million years ago." Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Problematic Sentence
Currently there is a sentence in the article that reads: The first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "transmutation" theory of 1809[37] which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by use or disuse in parents -- This sentence is problematic because 1) the phrase "forms of life that developed... and that on a local level... " does not clearly indicate the meaning intended by the author, 2) the phrase "caused by use or disuse in parents" does not clearly indicate what is or is not used, and 3) I suspect that the "which envisaged" phrase should be a comma which, but it does not seem to modify the word 1809. Since I do not understand the meaning of this sentence, I cannot correct it. Please advise. Peru Serv (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
First sentence
What people commonly think of as evolution, and in its common and even use by biologists is NOT change of allelles over time. It think the first sentence is deceptive.
John.r.r (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Can you elucidate what sort of changes you'd like to see made, rather than waste people's time venting your spleen?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was against the rules to be rude. I think they should block you,