This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
"Non-Darwinian evolution" can be understood as evolutionary processes that don't follow the Darwinian model. However, "Darwinism" is a theory, not a process or set of processes. So "Non-Darwinian theories of evolution" is better here.StN (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the entries in Evidence Against are vacuous. "Natural selection explains everything" (paraphrasing) is not evidence. The membrane example under Structuralism is self-assembly, not self-organization, which is dynamical, not static. Many self-organized phenomena in morphogenesis (and thus morphological evolution) are not products of natural selection. StN (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something is odd with this image, the thumb works, but the larger images appear to redirect to Common's main page. Maybe already deleted but still in the cache or such... — PaleoNeonate — 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently reads under "Evidence against Darwin, Natural selection": "Many lines of evidence e.g. of common descent from fossil record, selection experiments, genomics, evolutionary developmental biology". If this is evidence supporting the theory, perhaps I could suggest "supporting evidence" instead of "evidence against"? Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 15:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously in the case of this entry, the foil of all the others, the situation is the inverse of the rest. I'll think about how to word this as compactly as possible: I might even use a background colour for the row to indicate it's a special case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article at present purports to describe alternatives to Darwinism. The last entry in the table indicates that none of the other alternatives (e.g., Structuralism) are actually theories of evolution. Only Darwinism is such a theory. Not only that, Darwinism is not simply a theory of evolution, but is evolution itself. Why not just call the article "Incorrect Alternatives to Darwinism"? StN (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Against. The article is highly tendentious and one-sided as it stands. All the alternatives presented are represented as incorrect. Darwinism is equated to "Evolution" (not even to a plausible theory of evolution.) Although there are reputable present-day scientific advocates of Lamarckism, saltationism, and orthogenesis (all dismissed here) publishing in well-regarded journals, and even physicalist/structuralist theories in the domain of evolutionary developmental biology combining all three, this article acts as if evolutionary theory reached its conceptual apogee ca. 1975 and has barely changed since. StN (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking this on. I am willing to work with you through this review to bring the article to a state that we are both satisfied with. To do this, we need to itemise specific comments for action or discussion. To begin, I have listed points from your comment below as separate threads, and replied stating where appropriate what action I intend to take on them. Discussion and further points are invited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is highly tendentious and one-sided as it stands.
It is difficult to reply to adjectives as they do not suggest specific corrective actions. The section on each theory does already summarize the evidence for and against that theory, using reliable secondary sources (generally historians of science, reviewing the evidence). What I agree needs to be described further is where theories continue to be held (often in very different forms from those of the 19th century) by scientists today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the alternatives presented are represented as incorrect.
Not in so many words, no. Each one is described and assessed on the evidence and cited to reliable sources. Again (as above), modern continuations may lend nuances to this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinism is equated to "Evolution" (not even to a plausible theory of evolution.)
You mean that in this historical context, it was just one of the various theories of Evolution? OK, I've removed the link from the Darwinism row in the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are reputable present-day scientific advocates of Lamarckism, saltationism, and orthogenesis (all dismissed here) publishing in well-regarded journals, and even physicalist/structuralist theories in the domain of evolutionary developmental biology combining all three, this article acts as if evolutionary theory reached its conceptual apogee ca. 1975 and has barely changed since.
This is a fair point. I will extend coverage to the present time. History books of course tend to look backwards. I think we will need both some material in each theory's section, and to extend at the end of the article to balance the 'rebirth of Darwinism'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I have extended several of the theory sections and the final section to bring the coverage up to the present. I hope you are pleased with the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am right in thinking that other users are welcome to weigh in on GA reviews? (If not I will transfer this to the general talk page.) Though I really appreciate the content, which tackles (from personal experience) a fraught and complex subject, I feel that StN's original complaint remains valid: the article is shot through with presentism. "Denial of Change" is perhaps the most egregious instance: to say that Aristotle or any classical/medieval scholar was "den[ying]" change is a poor choice of language that misrepresents their thinking (header needs a neutral, non-oppositional name); equally in the wording of other statements: "By 1818, however, it was clear" (suggest remove/reword); the table column of 'Evidence Against' is unambiguously non-neutral, providing listings for every case except Darwinism (suggest remove/reword). Elsewhere, as also said, there seems to be a blurring of evolution/Darwinism so that denial of the second becomes denial of the first. On a related note, I think that a non-specialist coming to the subject needs to be given much greater context for evolution and Darwinism to be able to understand the content. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No article with a title like "Alternatives to Darwinism" should be promoted to GA. I would say the same for any article that uses the word "Darwinism" unironically in Wikipedia's voice anywhere in its text, except maybe to refer to some idiosyncratic view held by Charles Darwin (not being a specialist, I don't know if there is such a thing). I think it's a miracle this GA nomination was brought to the community's attention as quickly as it was so that one good-faith but misinformed GA reviewer didn't accidentally pass it based on their own ignorance of the topic and an "assumption of good faith" that it meets all the GA criteria (you'd be surprised how many GA noms pass in this kind of cloak-and-dagger fashion). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at the very best this article is similar to that much-maligned coverofNew Scientist. Most of the scientists and others named in the article didn't/don't deny evolution, but they proposed alternative theories to some things that Darwin himself could not or did not explain adequately. By this standard, pretty much everyone with a rudimentary knowledge of genetics could be labeled "anti-Darwinist" by virtue of knowing something about the natural world that wasn't understood in Darwin's lifetime. Maybe by this kind of "idiosyncratic views held by evolutionists of Darwin's own generation who hadn't developed the science of evolutionary biology as far as it has been today" definition of "Darwinism", much of this article could in theory be acceptable, but "Darwinism" doesn't actually mean that in common parlance, is almost certain to be misunderstood by almost everyone, and so having this article as it is currently written is if anything likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Admittedly, GA is not the same as "Today's Featured Article", but it would still put the page on a relatively very short list of articles that the community has deemed "Good". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is as yet NO GA REVIEW in progress - this discussion was started in error by an editor who did not wish to be a reviewer. If you want to discuss the title, that's at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Alternatives to Darwinism which will choose a title that all can live with. If you have suggestions for the article, please cut them from here and paste them on the article's talk page. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2017 (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.
"The alternatives in question do not encompass purely religious points of view such as young or old earth creationism or intelligent design, but are limited to explanations proposed by biologists."
Ah, well spotted, thank you. The phrase "theistic evolution" is used in two entirely different ways, one that you mention, and another, as used by historians of science, (the one that doesn't have a Wikipedia article), meaning a divinely-guided form of evolution, which is what is meant here. I'll add a clarification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every time the word "biologists" is used in this article, it's too general. Biologists aren't a hivemind, scientists have different opinions.
Of these theories, I know the most about theistic evolution, so these lines stuck out to me:
"Discounted by biologists by 1900" / "Accordingly, by around 1900, biologists no longer saw theistic evolution as a valid theory."
If biologists means "all biologists," or even "all reputable biologists," this is patently false, of course there are biologists who have done worthwhile work since 1900 who believe in a deity (there are also plenty of books about theistic evolution that have been written since 1900, it's hardly an extinct theory)
The group of biologists should either be specified or the lines should be omitted.
Theistic evolution was never a valid theory, since it contains a supernatural element and is therefore untestable. You can be aware of that and still be religious, so "there are biologists [..] who believe in a deity" is not a counter to "biologists no longer saw theistic evolution as a valid theory".
Also, "biologists think" never means "all biologists think". It refers to the mainstream. Theistic evolution is not part of science, it is a private matter of the people who believe in it - since it is just religion, mixed with a bit of science.
That is the only way it can be. Otherwise, there would be religious battles within science, between adherents of one god and adherents of other numbers of gods (such as zero), which would be crazy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
— PaleoNeonate — 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
