text:
South Bohemian Region

The South Bohemian Region (Jihočeský kraj) is an administrative unit (kraj) of the Czech Republic, located mostly in the southern part of its historical land of Bohemia, with a small part in southwestern Moravia. The western part of the South Bohemian Region is former Prácheňsko, a huge archaic region with distinctive features with its capital, Písek. In 2011, there were 624 municipalities in the region, whereof 54 had a status of a town.

The region borders (from the west clockwise) the regions of Plzeň, Central Bohemian, Vysočina and South Moravian. To the south, it borders Austria (Lower Austria and Upper Austria) and Germany (Bavaria). Until 30 May 2001, the region was named as Budějovický kraj or Českobudějovický kraj, after its capital, České Budějovice.

Due to its geographical location and natural surroundings the region belongs to the first settlements that appeared in the distant past. Over the past centuries, the South Bohemian region has been known for fishpond cultivation and forestry. The region has been industrialized since the beginning of the twentieth century. Nowadays, it is a tourist destination due to its natural and historical richness, and the fastest growing industry has been the travel industry.

History
On 1 May 1939 the Reichsgau Oberdonau was created by the Nazis in accordance with the Ostmark law of 14 April 1939 on the territory of Upper Austria following the Anschluss (annexation of Austria) in autumn 1938. This encompassed those districts of South Bohemia (Kaplitz und Krumau) that had long been settled by Germans. This was reversed after the Second World War and the German-speaking population that had lived in the area since the Middle Ages was expelled. Until 2001 the region of South Bohemia was called "Budějovický kraj".

Administrative divisions
The South Bohemian Region was established with constitutional Act No. 347/97 of Collections concerning the formation of higher territorial administrative units. The region and its authorities are specified by Act No. 129-2000 of Collections concerning regions, which came into effect on the day of the regional authorities elections, 1 January 2001. The region is divided into 7 districts:

Population and area
The total area of the region is 10,057 km2 which is 12.8% of the total area of the Czech Republic. As of 2024, South Bohemian Region's population is 654,505 and with only 65 people per square kilometer, the region has the lowest population density in the whole country.

64.2% of the region's population lives in towns or cities. One-third of the inhabitants live in the five largest municipalities. Only 4% of region's population lives in municipalities with less than 200 inhabitants.

As of 2024, the average age in the region is 43.3 years. Approximately 11% of inhabitants who were 15 years or older had a university degree (in 2001 this was 8%). According to the 2011 census, 20.6% of inhabitants in the region believe in God (however, almost half of the people did not answer this question). The table below gives an overview of the 10 most populated towns and cities in the region (as of 1 January 2024).

Other significant towns are: Vimperk, Dačice, Kaplice, Soběslav, Sezimovo Ústí, Vodňany, Blatná, Veselí nad Lužnicí, Bechyně and Protivín. The following table provides more details on the districts of the South Bohemian Region:

Geography
The central part of the South Bohemian Region consists of the České Budějovice Basin and Třeboň Basin. The southwest consists of the Bohemian Forest mountain range and its foothills, the Gratzen Mountains and its foothills are located to the south. The northern part of the region extends to the Central Bohemian Uplands. The eastern part lies in the Bohemian-Moravian Highlands. The highest elevation in the region is the 1378 m high Plechý in the Bohemian Forest, the lowest elevation with 350 m above sea level is at the Orlík Dam.

The region is located in the drainage basin of Vltava river. Other significant rivers are Malše, Lužnice, Otava, Nežárka and Lomnice. South Bohemia is known for its many ponds. In the past, more than seven thousand ponds were established across the region. With its 489 ha Rožmberk is the largest one, followed by Bezdrev (450 ha) and Horusice pond (415 ha). In the 20th century, a series of dams were constructed on the Vltava river. Lipno Reservoir is the largest reservoir in the Czech Republic and has an area of 4,870 ha. Other dams in the region are Orlík Dam, Římov Dam and Hněvkovice Dam.

A big part of the Šumava National Park is situated in South Bohemia. The Bohemian Forest is a holiday destination, in particular, with hikers. Many natural and cultural sights are connected with more than 500 km of summer marked trails and bike trails.

Climate
The climate in South Bohemia is of a transitional Central European type. It is affected alternatively by an oceanic influence from the west, and a continental influence from the east. Therefore, the weather can be variable. Most of the South Bohemian region belongs to the mild, warm and wet zone and at altitudes above 750 m, this passes to mild and cool. The warmest month is usually July, with temperatures averaging between 17 and 18 °C in valley areas. In higher localities (over 900 m) the temperatures can drop below 14 °C. Days with temperatures above 25 °C are most frequently in valley-basins, and the area around the confluence of the rivers Lužnice and Vltava (Moldau): on average there are 40-50 such days a year.

Economy
In 2021, the region produced 4,8% of the national GDP. The GDP per capita is 79% of the national average. It's the 11th position out of 14 among all regions. In 2011, the business sector in the South Bohemian Region comprises 159,000 entities, 114,000 of which were sole traders. There are more than 300 thousand people employed in the region, whereof 31% in industry, 13% in trade and 10% in construction sector. The average salary in the region in September 2013 was CZK 21,768 (approximately EUR 850). The unemployment rate in September 2013 was 6.05%.

The Region does not rank among key industrial areas of the Czech Republic. The industrial production is concentrated particularly in the area of České Budějovice and in Tábor District and Strakonice District. The food and drink processing industries play a significant role in the region. Other important sectors are the automotive industry, production of machinery and appliances, and also the textile and clothing industries. Recently, the travel industry has become an important sector in the region.

The Czech Academy of Sciences, whose institutes operate all over the region, provides a good base for the development of science. These institutes focus mostly on biology and ecology. Scientific work is also part of the activities of the University of South Bohemia (Czech: Jihočeská univerzita) with its headquarters in České Budějovice and Jindřichův Hradec.

Approximately 11% of the national agricultural production is produced in the South Bohemian Region. The agricultural sector focuses on plant production, mostly on growing cereals, oil plants, and potatoes. In animal husbandry, the breeding of cattle and pigs prevails. Fishpond cultivation has a long tradition in South Bohemia. Fish husbandry in the total area of 25 000 ha makes up about 50% of the total national production.

Architecture
The region is famous for its small villages with a pond in the middle. These are generally built in the style of the Rustic Baroque, also known as South Bohemian Baroque:

"Rustic Baroque is a term for the unique architecture of South Bohemia. The local folk bricklayer masters Martin Paták and František Šoch created a new type of South Bohemian farmhouse with an ornate frontispiece in the middle of the 19th century. A typical building of this style is a massive rustic farmhouse with two richly decorated frontispieces, which are joined by an arched gate with small doors. The marshland frontispieces are beautifully decorated, they have lavish contours, the surface is usually divided by allusive decorative columns, completed by arches, stylised hearts, four-leafed clovers, meadow flowers."

title: South Bohemian Region


text:
Talk:Evolution/Micro vs Macro

(Moved from Talk:Evolution --Brion 23:13 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC))

Micro/Macroevolution
I'm not quite sure why microevolution and macroevolution are in two separate categories. It's a distinction that deserves some attention, but evolution/natural selection should be first considered as a whole and the differences between the two explained in a small addendum. Macroevoultion = the appearance and dissapearance of species, microevolution = change within a species. Also, I feel the creationist/scientific debate deserves a place on this page, but it too should get its own category. One section for the current scientific theories, another for creationist objections, scientific rebuttals, creationist rebutalls to rebutalls etc.

-Emmett

 * Thats a misconception- although many scientists argue that the same processes are involved in the speciation and other 'macroevolutionary' phenomena there are others who think that different process are involved then microevolution. The evidence may be controversal, but I think that they should be treated as different subjects, especially as there is such a clear difference between the two schools of thought and a lot of evolutionary literature deals with this topic.

-Gog

 * Evolution has lots of interesting stories about scientists studying changes within existing species, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but nowhere does it provide evidence that such changes can lead to new species, much less new forms of living things. --Ed Poor

 * This is one of the most oft-repeated myths around. There is abundant evidence of this. Even I (a non-biologist) can think of several new species that have been created by human breeding programs - the most obvious example is the nowhere-found-in-nature plant you are eating the crushed seeds of when you sit down for your morning corn flakes. It is worth noting that there is a very clever debating tactic used by anti-evolution campaigners here: first you claim that "science cannot identify any missing links between species" and then, once you have scientists running around pointing at examples of intermediate forms, you go limp on that charge and turn it around backwards, claiming instead that, seeing as there are all these intermediate forms, they are just variations around a mean, and therefore there is "no evidence for any new species". (I'm not suggesting that Ed said that, I should hasten to add, just that it's a common debating tactic amongst the more unscrupulous campaigners, and one that writers on evolution need to be aware of.) Tannin 06:47 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * Another reasonably clear example can be found with the liger and tigons. Although the lion and the tiger can be considered to be of the same species (felid), they in fact have not been bred very successfully- the cross ends up with immune system difficulties; and the males are sterile (and nearly all female tigons are sterile). Clearly, the genetic drift between the two species has reached the point where they can be interbred only with extreme difficulty. This can be expected to only get worse with time, unless some environmental force pushes them back together, breeding from the rare fertile females. There's a speciation event happening right there.|:

 * The field of evolution is divided into two broad areas; microevolution and macroevolution.

Do actual biologists make this distinction? I know creationists do, in which case we should discuss it in that context (and possibly in the article on creationism or intelligent design). --Robert Merkel

No, biologists don't use those terms; they are the inventions of creationists so their definitions can change to dance around whatever evidence turns up. --LDC
 * I raised the same objection to Maveric149, and he convinced me that it is indeed a biological concept. I did some more checking on my own and indeed, these are valid biological terms.  The point of contention is whether there is an absolute or relative difference between micro- and macroevolution.  Scientists use ther terms to gloss a relative distinction.  Creationists use the terms to argue for an absolute distinction.  But to claim that micro- and macroevolution are two distinct processes is wrong and misconstrues scientific usage of the terms.  Slrubenstein

 * I just did a major revision of the format and I think the article makes a lot more sense now. However, it is still confusing, largely because there is too much chatter, especially in the macroevolution section.  I wrote an introduction for that section (which should really be the entire section) and I hope it clarifies the essence of the macroevolution debate among scientists.  Regarding creationists and macroevoltion: if the macroevolutionists are right, then there is a huge issue in the history of life with little or no explanation.  Most scientists don't have a problem with this; it just means that there is more work to be done.  Any time a scientist says "I don't know", some arrogant fool has to jump in and pretend that he has all of the answers. adam

First, I have a question. Can we have "macroevolution" (as a concept) without "macromutation". I don't want to hear "Yes, we can have speciation without a special class of mutations specifically for that purpose." I want to know if anyone speaks of macroevolution without the assumption that it is caused by a specific type of mutation. Without "macromutation", I don't see how "macroevolution" is any different than speciation and divergence. However, I did a Google search for "macroevolution" and found a few articles that defined macroevolution without reference to macromutation. If they are separate concepts, I made a mistake; my knowledge is limited to the debate over macroMUTATION and I know nothing about macroevolution.

That being said, I tried to report the current status of the macromutation debate among scientists. Some scientists have told me their opinion first hand (and even if they don't believe in macromutation, their explanation of their belief showed that they are aware of it as a debate among scientists). Similar information can be found by doing a Google search on "macroevolution". I haven't done a search on "macromutation" yet. Anyway, I wrote this and some anonymous person trashed what I wrote and attributed my opinion (and the opionion of my professor) to creationists. LEAVE THE CREATIONISTS OUT OF THIS!!! I wish this person had read the talk page, and had read the articles referenced by Google, and had signed in so that I could direclty communicate with him.

BTW: This page should be limited to the general scientific consensus about evolution. Macromutation is an ongoing debate and should only be mentioned. Likewise, macroevoltuion (if there is such a thing independent of theories of marcomutation) is a very specific field and should also only be mentioned. This is very frustrating adam

 * If I may anwser my own question; I have just started reading Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" and he repeatedly uses the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution". To avoid argument, he wants to use them in a purely descriptive way, leaving an open question about whether they are different processes.  Using this descriptive definition, the main reason for the distinction is that we learn about macroevolution and microevolution through different methods...basically macroevolution is what a paleotologist sees, while microevolution is what a geneticist sees.  adam

- Viruses and Macroevolution: Evolution almost certainly occurs in many different ways. We are well aware of mules of different species: animals that are offspring of two different species, which are themselves sterile. Their existence shows that relatively minor genetic changes can sterilize a creature. This begs the question, "How does the number of chromosomes change and result in a new species?" The probability of identical mutations is astronomically small, unless it is catalyzed in some way. My favorite candidate for such a catalyst is viral infection. One could imagine a virus that infects a population of females, causing identical mutations to their egg cells, or to their feti' egg cells. Thus, it may well be that higher life forms are symbiotic with viruses, and we would not be here except for viruses! Rudminjd 15:41 20 Jul 2003 (UTC) Joseph D. Rudmin

- For those who think that "macroevolution" is not a term used by biologists, go to http://www.pubmed.com and search for these terms in publications. Macroevolution gets 73 hits, microevolution gets 175. I've also seen "macroevolution" used in a grant proposal to describe the evolution of a particular genus. I think it is safe to say that any evolution researcher is familiar with these terms and many/most would be comfortable using it in purely descriptive terms. With that in mind, I am going to remove a blatantly false statement from the article. adam
 * There's hundreds of thousands of articles on pubmed (with >140000 using the word evolution alone), so I'd argue instead that the usage of these terms is very rare. (~ .05%) Kim Bruning 09:59, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- Also, the introduction is too heavy on population genetics. Laymen (our target audience) don't think of species as being a difference in gene frequenceis, and neither do most biologists. Laymen probably can't understand that comment about gene frequencies. Also, I think it is rather cocky for someone to declare that they understand the general genetic basis for species differences when we have just started to investigate the specific genetic differences between species. adam

Another Question: Should the comparison be made between "biologists" and "creationists"? Cant a Biologist believe in either theory abput our origin... or somewhere in between?

 * Yes, biologists are free to believe that they want. On the other hand, given the centrality of evolution to biology, it's difficult to work as a scientist in the field of biology if you reject evolution.  For example, any extrapolation from one species to another is only valid if you assume relatedness (and thus, common origins, "descent with modification", all that stuff).  Without evolution, the idea of "rodents" is nothing but a grouping of convenience, and you cannot assume that knowledge about one species gives you any insight into another.  Without subscribing to evolution anyone who does "animal testing" is engaging in nothing other than cruelty to animals, since there is no logical reason why monkeys should react to drugs in a more human-like manner than slugs would.

 * Biology without evolution requires the assumption that God created a world which is identical to one that evolved. In which case, you need to function as if you believe in evolution.  Biologists might claim not to believe in evolution, but they still function as if they do.  I am unaware of any biologists who are creationists and do logically valid research that works from that assumption.  Guettarda 20:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "any extrapolation from one species to another is only valid if you assume relatedness" - that's false. Extrapolations, analogies and taxonomic grouping is based on the similar or common structures the species have. It existed before the theory of evolution. Relatedness is only an evolutionary explanation for the existence of the common structures. If one wishes do believe in something else than evolution, he or she may want to explain the similarity in other ways, for example modular design (or have no explanation at all - like the atheists and agnostics had before darwin)

 * Metaphysical theistic creationism and the scientific theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive, metaphysical materialistic evolutionism (this is not a scientific theory, it's a philosophy) and creationism are.

 * "you need to function as if" - actually, it's the other way. Evolutionists function as if there was design, they even use as-if-design terminology. Nothing progressive in science is based on the theory of evolution. The only thing I know about is former mistreatement in medicine because of belief in vestigial organs. The whole science could succesfully go without it.--charon 16:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Deleted
 * Mutations to existing species resulting in entirely new species have been observed in the field.

because it's a big claim with no support given. The claim is somewhat controversial, in that I think creationists dispute this. Assuming the claim is true, I hope that someone will re-add the statement to the article with a couple of examples of observations of the creation of new species by random mutation. Above on this talk page the example of corn is mentioned, corn being modified by human agriculture, I think. I'm not sure if biologists would agree that this is a species change; in general, examples given should clearly state why the example meets the criteria for a new species. Zashaw 22:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Allopolyploidy in plants, for one. Hybridisation followed by chromosomal doubling.  That's a pretty solid, and basically instantaneous speciation event.  And gives lots of fodder for evolution, since you have a whole extra genome to experiment with; you can mutate key enzymes and not have to pay the consequence of loss of functionality.  The origins of corn are disputed, but most most probably corn originated with either a hybridisation even like the one described, or with "catastrophic re-organisation" of the genome.  Only after corn speciated was it subject to selection by humans.
 * Wheat had two such events; the new species were most probably encouraged and propagated by people, but the hybridisation and doubling was natural. Einkorn wheat hybridised with one species of goat grass.  The sterile hybrid became fertile through the production of unreduced gametes (meiosos failed to occur properly).  Not that rare an event.  Product - fertile emmer wheat, basic crop of the Neolithic revolution, origin or agriculture, etc.  Emmer wheat hybridises in the same way with another goat grass.  Bread wheat comes about.  In cultivation, yes, but it was a spontaneous process, between a crop and a wild plant.
 * Results cannot breed with parent species, very different. Polyploidy is the easy answer - it's the only one that happens fast enough to see.  But it happens, gives rise to new species, disproves the "like only gives rise to like" idea.  Guettarda 00:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I read the above sentence in the article and had a real problem with it as it stands, too. I think it needs some form of backup/reference, or at least a simple example, otherwise it just looks like an unsupported claim. Anyone who understands the issue care to condense one of Guettarda's examples down for the article? maebmij 04:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What would be an adequate reference? I have had the argument with creationists before, and it seems that whenever you give an example of speciation is countered with "shifted goalposts".  Triticale is an example of a totally new species that was generated through this process - of course it's an artificial hybrid, but it uses the process that was inferred from wheat evolution.  The simple fact of the matter is that speciation is an almost trivial process - there are disjunction bird populations which should be considred different species because they do not recognise each other's songs, and so would not interbreed under natural conditions.  That is sufficient for speciation.  Trivial, but it now allows the two groups to wander in different directions (either through drift or selection).  Once you have speciation microevolution turns into macroevolution - changes between species rather than changes within species.  Another example (if memory serves me) is a new polyploid Spartina which originated and spread in Europe in the mid-20th century.  I suppose the wheat example is the best one, but there is a nice example in the Triangle of U article.  Guettarda 04:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Evolution/Micro vs Macro


text:
Talk:Tillandsia

this looks like a copy-paste from something else ...-- Tarquin 23:15 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm completely wrong. User:Arpingstone informs me this is his original work. apologies - t

The first sentence says the genus is found in deserts, and not until the second sentence do we find out that this is a genus of plants. Since Wikipedia is not just about plants, that is wrong. 131.183.73.23 22:11 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I am the writer of this article. You are correct in what you say, I should have said plant genus in the first sentence. This has now been done. Thanks for noticing it. Arpingstone 09:36 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

It's would be great to find a photo of what we call "Fille de l'air" in France that is a large Tillandsia growed into a ball-shape and simply hanged by a wire. This will illustrate they grow without soil. Ericd 21:36 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Looks like a good start
I wish I had the time to flesh it all out, but I'm glad to see a pretty good description of a fascinating plant genus. My parents had specimens of about 20 Tillandsia species in their trees before they were nailed by hurricane Andrew. Many species are simply fascinating -- just outside my window is a large Tillandsia with a six-foot spike.

But it would be interesting if we could have an entry for ball moss (time limitations preclude me from doing so)...

It is exceptionally common in the southern US -- in southern Florida, it is virtually impossible to find a live oak without ball moss in it.

Ball moss is often found growing on electronic transmission wires in Florida(!), and it is one of the most vigorous of the Tillandsias. Sometimes its growth is so heavy that tree limbs break under its collective weight.

Also, ball moss has a capability that only a relative handful of plant species has: it fixes nitrogen from the air, like beans and alfalfa.

 * I agree it's a good start but I don't like some of it. "Tillandsie [sic] takes many years to flower. With the fruiting the life of the individual species has come to the end. There are still seeds formed, then the mother plant is destroyed" appears to be a poor translation from German. But mostly, I'm going to try to upload a picture... Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
 * I repaired the broken English with known facts. If the source actually says the quote above, the whole thing should be deleted because it is wrong. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
 * Some sort of issue that wikipedia has with me trying to "hijack" my own account. Ain't got time for that. The picture is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_mIYjxvklqvYW1UbFk3cXVmUzNoYUY0YXhERU5xaFdvWFdz/view Add it to the gallery if you can. It's "T. ionantha in bloom. The yellow pistils and the stamen are clearly visible." At least that's the description I entered twice. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
 * I just might go through and edit the whole mess, because after re-reading it, it has a lot of awkward expressions and contradictory jumping around, e.g "Some are aerophytes, which have a minimal root system and grow on shifting desert soil. Due to the epiphytic way of life of the plants the peculiarity arises that these bulbs [?] do not lie in the ground, but hang in the air on branches." So, desert soil or branches? And that's just the second paragraph. At first look, many references are not readily available, but I think I can fix some of the confusing language without going to the original sources. Wastrel Way (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Eric
 * Revising the whole article using the German and other sources was too much, but I got my picture uploaded. Note that there are two pictures now of "T. ionantha" blooming, but the blooms are very different. From an pollinator's point of view, and ecologically, this makes very little sense, and they surely are different species. Wastrel Way (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Eric

Oops
I just cut all the content of the page and then saved it... Sorry! I thought I was working on the page for Tillansia insignis that I just created about an hour ago, was going to make a redirect to Werauhia insignis, which is the new name for the species. I put the content back, hope it doesn't screw up the history too bad.

Codiferous 02:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual
The following information was cut from the article and should probably be transwikied to Wikibooks:
 * '';Light
 * Place in indirect or diffused sunlight in summer (full summer sun will damage the leaves) but direct sun is acceptable in winter. If indoors, Tillandsia must be placed near a bright window (avoid a north-facing view). They prefer to be outdoors in summer.
 * Air
 * Fresh, moving air is ideal.
 * Watering
 * For all watering, the first choice is rain water. If not available, use filtered tap water or tap water. The plants should be soaked thoroughly twice a week when not in flower; more often in a hot dry environment but do not keep the plants constantly wet, allow to dry between waterings. Additionally, the plant will enjoy being sprayed once a day in summer. In autumn and winter spray three times a week. Spraying does not replace thorough soaking with a watering can or dipping entirely in water (for approximately one hour). After soaking, excess water is shaken off to avoid rot. Plants in flower are more susceptible to rot and should not be soaked. Tillandsia cannot survive in standing water, nor being planted in earth.
 * Temperature
 * Temperature is not critical, the allowable range being from 32°C down to 10°C. They are sensitive to frost, except for the hardiest species, T. usneoides, which can tolerate night-time frosts down to about -10°C.
 * Feeding
 * Spray with Bromeliad or houseplant fertilizer, once every two weeks spring and summer and once every four weeks autumn and winter. Dilute the feed to one quarter the recommended strength.
 * Flowering
 * Although not normally grown for their flowers some Tillandsia will bloom on a regular basis, indeed, some species have very impressive flowers. In addition it is quite common for plants to take on a different leaf colour (usually changing from green to red) when about to flower. This is, sadly, an indication that the plant is monocarpic (flowers once before dying) but offsets around the flowering plant will continue to thrive.
 * Offsets
 * After flowering, the plant will grow offsets or "pups" around the mother plant. Leave these on if possible, as the plant will be heartier if left to form a colony.
 * Fixing plant to a base
 * Fix with silicone adhesive or a non-water soluble glue, on the lower leaves but try to avoid the base from which the roots grow. For a mount, try seashells, log sections, driftwood, coral, rocks, pottery, fountains or crystals. If desired, decorate the mount with sphagnum moss (dyed or natural green) and ornaments.''

Information like this can be useful, but unless it describes the cultivation of the plant instead of telling readers how to do it, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Rkitko (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rkitko, I think the issues of what the plants like and how to give them what they like to cultivate them are hard to separate. The current section on "Cultivation" is getting close to a "how-to" manual. Much of it is not needed, and some is repetitive. The essential thing for a person who keeps one of these plants, as I do, is not to kill it: with too much water or no water at all, with direct sunlight or no light, or with extremes of temperature. That's it, and it will live practically forever. The differences between grey and green plants and thin-leaved and thick-leaved plants, if backed up by science, belong in the ecology section. I treat them all the same and they are just fine. There is not enough science on these plants, and many of the references are written by growers, not botanists. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

About the picture with epiphytes on electric wires
The legend of the picture says Tillandsia recurvata, but on other Wikipedia pages, like Epiphyte, the same picture is said to show Tillandsia usneoides. I am no expert, so does anyone know if really both are one this picture or if not, which one, so this little confusion can be fixed? --Globulariifolia (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I'm not an expert either, but I think the Tillandsia recurvata identification is much more plausible. It isn't a long, dangling plant like T. usneoides. I've taken out the more egregious statements elsewhere, except in the Spanish wiki which is semi-protected. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you.--Globulariifolia (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Tillandsia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.filogenetica.org/deluna_pdfs/10Tillandsia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Spanish Moss in Tree, Savannah Historic District, Savanna, Georgia, United States.jpg

"cite journal" template and maintenance errors
Article refs need updated. Script warnings claim template errors and maintenance messages; messages are hidden. Errors apparently have been there for a while. I fixed 3, more remain. TomStonehunter (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tillandsia


text:
Talk:Evolution/Content and Theory of Evolution

Moved from Talk:Evolution --Brion 23:16 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Content of Evolution and Theory of evolution
If we are refering to the biological concept of evolution, and not some other kind of evolution (such as cultural evolution) then we have to state that we are discussing the biological concept. Then we state the referent.

 * Clearly don't need the word 'biological' as 'genetic' implies this

 * An encyclopedia article aims at clarity. Clarity states, it does not imply.  We state what we are discussing, then we state the referent.

 * Redundant none the less - it is meaningless to talk about non-biological genetic change. Clarity may indeed state, but this means true clarity never implies, and thus there can be no truely clear encyclopedias.

 * not true. artificial life, genetic programming, genetic algorithms, machine replication, all involve non-biological genetics and evolution. Unless one considers having genetics to automatically classify something as "biological," which strikes me as somewhat unusual when discussing computer programs and machinery.

Guys, I find this a bizarre debate. Evolution is a process; one can also speak of the concept of evolution. You can reasonably say that the subject of an encyclopedia article titled "evolution" is either the process of evolution or the concept of the process of evolution. It doesn't matter.

 * For my part, I think "A biological concept that refers to" is poor strictly on copyediting grounds. I suppose that whenever we mention anything of which we have a concept, we should begin the article in this format? -- "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X".  So: "Validity is a logical concept that refers to..."  "Animal is a biological concept that refers to..."  Etc.  Jeez.  Why not just say "Validity is.." or "An argument is valid iff..." and "An animal is..."?  I don't see what the "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X" construction gains you.

It clarifies which concept of evolution we are refering to, the biological one. The text flows from the general to the specific. That is proper. That maxmizes clarity. There is no other way to unambigously show what we are talking about without using more words. There is a reason why this principle is used by every other encyclopedia.

It is not the case that every other encyclopedia begins articles about things of which we have concepts with the words, "A [field that studies X] concept that refers to X"--or anything like those words, either. Yes, text ought to give something like genus and species when defining a thing. That does not entail that we need to refer to the concept in describing the thing carefully.

--LS

Should evolution and theory of evolution be merged? -- The Anome

 * I would prefer not to merge them

 * 'evolution' is somewhat introductory (and the entry where one starts reading)
 * 'theory of evolution' gives details
 * Shorter articles are easier to read on the screen (it is easier to grasp the information structure if one has a chunk of information and then specific links with additional information; for printouts it is the opposite)

Kwaku

 * But (as they presently stand, at least), the page on the theory of evolution feels rather like an afterthought. The evolution page has a lot of details and technical talk, however.  I agree that there should be two separate pages - one for the concept of evolution in general, and another for the theory (and mechanisms) of evolution.  But the way the information is distributed at the moment doesn't seem right.

Stuart Presnell

I don't understand how the "concept of evolution" is separate from the "theory of evolution". Also, if we want to discuss the detailed mechanisms by which evolution is thought to occur, then we can discuss them in articles dedicated to each specific mechanism. I think that there should be two main articles; one that addresses evolution as a natural process (describing the current state of the theory), and one that addresses it as a social phenomenon (with history, opposing personalities, reactions against it, etc.) Perhaps these could be evolution and theory of evolution, respectively. We should start discussing outlines for the two pages. adam
 * Hi adam; I like your idea a lot, and think it would help separate out the mess, except for one sticky issue: it's difficult to discuss the current state of the theory without including some of the opposing voices, especially creationist voices, because we can't simply say, "This isn't scientific", and relegate it to a separate article. This makes it difficult to simply lay out theory in one unsnarled page, because of the necessity of discussing where opposition is coming from. If you can think of a way to resolve this, then I think your framework is much better than what we currently have (which is a mess). Graft

 * If I had my way, creationism would only be a footnote in the discussion of evolution, but perhaps the political realities of Wikipedia don't permit that. I would like the article to explain the things that are commonly agreed upon by scientists, such as what we've already written about the common ancestory of all life, the sources of variation, and selection & drift as mechanisms determining which variants survive and which fail.  It is legitimate and worthwhile to point out limitations and gaps in that "universal theory of evolution" that I described above, however I don't think that all of those discussions can be placed in one article. There are several limitations for any particular theory, and there are several theories, and each one of those could make an interesting article in their own right.  Creationism/ID has no scientific value in itself.  The criticisms that are used by creationists are either completely off the mark or nothing more than criticisms that real scientists target at each others' theory, combined with the attitude of "since we can't find a complete naturalistic explanation right now, there must not be one."  adam

- There is a need for a more general opening to the article -- the fact, is MANY people OFTEN use the word "evolution" in a non-biological context -- recent debates in the talk pages of early infanticidal childrearing and circumcision are good examples. slrubenstein

 * I agree. If you want to revert, go ahead. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002

I made some editorial changes in the beginning, contextualizing the use of the word "evolution" -- my goal was simply to make it read better.

I also added some specificity that I believe is necessary to avoid the revert war that has been going on over the past few days. I know that much of this war owes to a serious misunderstanding of the relationship between "fact" and "theory" that others have already addressed. But I think it is also important to distinguish between "evolution" and Darwin's theory of evolution which, strictly speaking, is not a theory of evolution per se (Mayr's work could be presented this way) as a theory of "the evolution of species through natural selection." That is, Darwin's work is more specific. In any event, "evolution" and theories of evolution (or "the theory of evolution" are not the same. Evolution is a natural process observable either directly or indirectly, and theories of evolution are models that attempt to account for evolution.  The article should be clear about this distinction.  Slrubenstein

The begining of this article is very confusing with how it talks about evolution as a general concept and then says "we're talking about biological evolution"...then talks more about evolution as a general concept. Also that last paragraph about evolution in general is good, but it doesn't fit into the rest of the article. I propose that most of the biology stuff be moved to a new page and we leave the general discussion of evolution on this page. What should we name the new page? Evolution (biology)? adam

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

I'm wondering why the origins of life is even mentioned in the article. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. If it's to be included, then at least it should be clarified that it has nothing to do with evolution. I tried to edit it, but someone keeps deleting it. TheAlphaWolf


text:
Talk:Evolution/Genetic drift

Moved from Talk:Evolution --Brion 23:16 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Genetic drift

Genetic Drift
I deleted a paranthetical characterizing genetic drift as "random." I think the use of this word is misleading. It is correct that drift is random in the sense that it is non-teleological (although the same could be said for natural selection -- it is functional but not because of any greater purpose). But "random" also suggests "arbitrary" and "patternless," when genetic drift is a statistically understandable process. Slrubenstein

I have been going over "drift" and realize I may be wrong about drift and randomness. So I would appreciate it if someone could incorporate into the article more discussion of this/clarification. What is the role of sampling error here? Also, could someone acurately describe the founder effect here? I think the crucial thing is that this article give a clear account of the other processes involved in evolution besides natural selection... Slrubenstein

I think that it is easy to understand what is meant by "random" in this context, but you are right that the wording isn't very precise. Would "stochastic" be better? Maybe we should forget that and get to the real point; in situations of "genetic drift", the cause of selection is not related to anything that is inherited. adam

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

title: Talk:Evolution/Genetic drift


text:
Talk:Evolution/Misc

Moved from Talk:Evolution. --Brion 23:17 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Misc.
The sentence "Evolution therefore allows life to persist over time" was changed to read "...to persist over greater spans of time." Lineages can certainly evolve but still eventually die out. Also, the paragraph on the molecular basis of evolution was added primarily to continue the campaign against teleological thinking about adaption. Suze

 * Disagree. Some lineages eventually die out, but there are others that show no sign of being about to, and life as a whole seems to be doing a great job persisting itself. --JG

 * I disagree, in that the phrase 'persist over time' does not mean 'persist throughout time', i.e., it does not imply eternal persistence. So the change was unnecessary.  But the current wording is not bad - just not better, in my opinion.  TS

- Is there a good place to put what I think of as "Evolution Analogizing". For instance, we have a good entry on Meme, but the concept of meme should be recognized for what it is - creeping evolutionary analogizing.

Where did the article on punctured equilibrium go? This is a min tenent of evolution, yet its page seems to have dissapeared entirely. I can no longer find it in a search, even though I distictly remember it being there before, and there is no link to it form the evolution page. Am I missing something more basic? (Yes, I did make sure I was spelling it right. Not that basic. :p)

The first paragraph defines biological evolution as change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.

But this is surely not called transmutation, right? Something is wrong. Isn't evolution simply the change of species over time, and the appearance of new ones? Genetics seems to properly belong to the theory of evolution, because one could conceivably try to explain this transmutation without genetics. --AxelBoldt

I just changed the "refers to the change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time" because of the above reason. If we define evolution as the change of genetic characteristics of populations, then Darwin did not know anything about evolution. --AxelBoldt

I think someone should modify the "origin of life" section to specifically mention that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abogenesis and is specifically dealing with already created life. I showed the link to a friend the other night and he had trouble disassociating the two due to the correct absense of it being spelled out. --Kugamazog

This picture of Darwin with his furrowed brow, makes him look like a Cro-Magnon Man :)).--socrtwo 03:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ratchet process in evolution?
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, 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"

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)

 * I agree. RK 23:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I reworked the section, removing the "post-Darwinism" term, introduced the structuralist themes such as Brian Goodwin which is the context these issues are more usually discussed in, and NPOVed some of the later sections on Dawkin's & Dennett, and finally moved the whole thing to the end of the article. -- Lexor 08:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

At the moment I am concerned with this article on biological evolution, which is pretty good. Unfortunately, someone set up a parallel article called Theory of evolution; it seems to me that this violates Wikipedia NPOV policy. I propose that it be removed, and turned into a redirect for this article. My reasons are as follows. RK 23:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(1) That theory of evolution article is a poor rehash of our already extant article on evolution, minus most of its good points. (2) It will confuse efforts to improve our articles on this subject. Some people will add contributions here, but others will add contributions to the evolution article. (3) The title itself ("Theory of evolution") is very misleading, as virtually all scientists accept that biological evolution is a proven phenomenon; its existence is a fact, and not merely a theory, as the title implies. The details of how lifeforms evolve from one form to another are considered "theories" or "hypotheses", and of course should and are labeled as such. But the basic existence of biological evolution is not questioned. (4) Any science article on biological evolution should not contain extensive discussions of mystical views! Religion and science are already spun-off into other topics, such as Creationism and a few others. An article on the science of evolution should not contain quasi-scientific mystical writings of 19th century Christian Jesuit priests (like this theory of evolution currently does); these are not recognized as being part of the theory of evolution by mainstream science. Such discussions belong in other articles. RK 23:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with RK's proposal and his reasons #1 & #2. I partly agree with reasons #3 & #4. My sense is that those wikipedians who are most interested, active and responsible would like to follow RK's proposal too. If we are going to do "Theory" of Evolution, why not have an article on Gravity and Theory of Gravity? or go back to Atom AND Atomic Theory?... B 21:10 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Historical concepts of evolution from antiquity to the 19th century should be discussed in a section titled "History of evolutionary thought", which could become a separate article if it gets too long. Certainly the evolution article needs to mention creationism, especially in that historical context, but the details of creationist thought obviously belong in a separate article. The existing article Theory of evolution should redirect to this one. --Eloquence 21:33 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * The evolution article would not necessarily have to refer to creationism if there were also a separate article like "Controversies regarding evolution". An article like that would act as the gateway for interested parties to move to other lines of thought. A similar thing has been done for the articles Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Controversies regarding Mormonism. In this way the primary topic get consideration (without going too far off on tangents), its history gets consideration, and alternative views on the topic get consideration. B 22:23 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I feel that many of the historical comments in Theory of Evolution are pertinent and worth reading, especially since some of them extend the concept of evolution to non-biological systems. I suggest that both pages be merged; or perhaps Theory of Evolution could be retitled "History of the Theory of Evolution" or even "Evolution of the Theory of Evolution". - Joseph D. Rudmin
 * "Evolution of the Theory of Evolution"?! UGH!!! B 22:23 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--

I think it is a bit of a problem that the fate of the theory of evolution is currently discussed in three different pages, by different people. It would be nice that a central place is decided. Please see also Talk:speciation and Talk:theory of evolution.

I tried to make obvious in the theory of evolution a point that I think is not clear or emphasized enough in this article

 * A theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how evolution occurs. Evolution can be defined as the process by which organisms originate by transformation out of yet existing organisms, and not by direct creation into their final state.

 * When talking about biological evolution, there is often a confusion the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved (and are continuing to change) from older ancestral organisms and there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes.

 * Most modern biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact, even if a "fact" can only mean "confirmed" when all evidence seems to converge. But, many biologists also admit they are less certain of the exact mechanism or mechanisms (theory) of evolution. Most evolutionists make a very clear distinction between theory and fact because they acknowledge how far from completely understanding the mechanisms by which evolution occurred they are.

I think this is *very* important.

RK comment to this add-on was

''This makes no sense. We do not do this for any other science topic. Why do this here? Every science topic is based on facts, but also requires discussion of theories. We never chop up our articles in this way; that is terribly confusing. Also, your recent additions are confusing, because many Wikipedia readers will never see them. They will only be seen by people who by chance read this article, but they will be totally missed by people reading the main Evolution article.''

I agree with the second part of his statement, but still maintain that this is very important and not emphasized enough.

I think that there should be two separate articles, one for the facts (the concept of evolution in general) and the second for the theory (or rather the theories), in short the different mechanisms proposed to explain evolution. This is especially important as evolution is now little questionned, but all the mechanisms are still not "proved" and theories controversial.

RK comment above

''(3) The title itself ("Theory of evolution") is very misleading, as virtually all scientists accept that biological evolution is a proven phenomenon; its existence is a fact, and not merely a theory, as the title implies. The details of how lifeforms evolve from one form to another are considered "theories" or "hypotheses", and of course should and are labeled as such. But the basic existence of biological evolution is not questioned.''

is deeply representing that confusion. And qualifying "details" the heavy controversies which exist among biologists to try to define the mechanisms of the "very little controversial fact of evolution", is slightly derogatory to us.

Could not we separate these two considerations : the facts and the models established from the facts ?

Also, I think it not clear that what is usually referred to as The theory of evolution is Darwin's.

Finally, I am deeply troubled first by the shortness of the neodarwinist theory paragraph, and by the lack of other modern theories such as the one proposed by Margulis.

RK also said : ''Anthere, please state here precisely which non-science topics linked to evolution that you think we should have articles on. We can then add a mention of these topics to the main Evolution article, and we can link to them in new articles. The current fact of working on two totally different articles, on the same topic, being worked on simulatenously in a carzy patchwork way, is unworkable.'' RK

 * If these articles recover themselves, yes, absolutely, you are right that it is unworkable. If they are clearly labelled as taking care of different aspects, it is workable. I also have the feeling you label the whole content of the actual theory of evolution as non-science. I disagree.

RK also said

'' Anthere, I don't understand why you keep claiming to be confused. The issue is very simple. People are trying to link to an article on science, on the processs of biological evolution. When they do so, they expect to come to an article on that topic. They do not expect to be mislead to a side-topic article that has very little science (almost none at all, in fact), and instead focuses on the mystical views of a Jesuit Christian priest from a century ago!

 * If this is a reference to Teilhard de Chardin, he is more than a priest, and his views get much attention now in (physics-based) cosmology. EofT

This effectively pushes certain political and religious views into science articles. That is inappropriate. It is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy RK 21:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC) ''

Just as well, I can't understand why you refuse to link the current theory of evolution to the speciation article, while Margulis work (mentionned in the theory of evolution article) is focusing in explaining the origin of organelles in plant cells for example, hence a speciation mechanism. It looks to me as refusing to acknowledge a scientific work for reasons you don't explain other than "no linkage to an article dealing with the strange views of a jesuite from a century ago".

I would dare conclude that the issue can then not be solved by a bare redirection made to the evolution article, or by a renaming of this article. I think it is necessary to redefine clearly what should be in which one.

I am not convinced that the best title should be History of the Theory of Evolution without serious reworking of the content of both articles, since a good deal of the evolution article is historical stuff, while some of the work mentionned in the theory of evolution is less than 30 years old. Hardly history.

Anthère

--

Regarding terminology, "theory" does not mean "conjecture". In physics, "theory" usually means a rigorous mathematical model. I regard the phrase, "That is just theory," to indicate NOT that the model is doubtful, but that it could use refinement. True, this is not physics, but the word "theory" still does not detract from the fact of evolution. Furthermore the term "theory of evolution" is used so commonly that it should appear somewhere in the article, so that searches find it.

 * I echo these sentiments. An excellent parallel to the Theory of Evolution would be the Theory of Relativity in physics. -- NetEsq 01:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding reorganization of the articles, if someone feels so inspired, s/he should add a link at the end, "Comments by Jo Shmo", and create a suggested page or set of pages to replace the ones we have.

Joseph D. Rudmin

 * well, RK has decided for you and I. Your proposal just comes too late :-) Anthere

Well Done, RK! -Joseph D. Rudmin --

title: Talk:Evolution/Misc


text:
Talk:Evolution/Inheritance and genetics

Moved from Talk:Evolution --Brion 23:17 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Inheritance and genetics as they apply to evolution
In the text of the evolution article it states:

 * In Darwin's time, there was no widely accepted mechanism for heritability. In modern times, the mechanism for heritability is known to be DNA. There is also the interesting possibility that proteins are responsible for some heritability.

I have a couple problems with this. First, DNA is a structural molecule and does nothing on its own. Therefore, it is not a mechanism. The mechanism of heritability is the process known as reproduction. To use an analogy, people are confusing the act of reading for the book being read.

Second, I'm trying to imagine how a protein could be a means by which traits are inherited and its awfully hard to see. In animals at least those proteins would be restricted to being in cell lines that evolve into sperm and egg. If anyone has scientific evidence for such I'd love to see a link rather than see this comment ad hoc. -- dwm.

 * Proteins can affect inheritance in (at least) two ways:
 * 1. They may be modified post translationally, and then cause other polypeptides of the same type to be modified in the same way. Prions and histones do this in a manner that propagates traits thru mitosis and mieosis.
 * 2. Gene expression states can also be self-perpetuating. This self-perpetuation involves proteins (obviously).

 * I have no reason to believe that this affects in vertebrate inheritance, but there is evidence that it does affect yeast inheritance, and possibly plants also. I don't think that there's any reason to mention this type of inheritance in the Evolution article, but we shouldn't write anything that implies that these types of inheritance don't exist. AdamRetchless 23:19, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're confused, but I think the text is fine as it is. First, where do you get the idea that there's some black-and-white distinction between data-carrying elements and functional elements at the molecular level? Biochemistry isn't that simple. Certain strands of RNA, for example, can catalyze reactions by themselves, without being transcribed into proteins. I don't think anyone has shown DNA doing this, but I don't think it would terribly surprize anyone either. Secondly, I think the statement is being used in a more general sense than you're interpreting: DNA is a means by which heredity takes place. Maybe "mechanism" isn't the best word, and there are certainly lots of other pieces in the whole mechanism as well, but DNA does play a central role as the primary means of long-term storage of information. I think that's all they're trying to say here. The comment about proteins is potentially confusing, but it probably refers to recent discoveries about proteins that make their way into germ cells, mostly sperm. I'll try to find a citation. --LDC

Let me be plain. The reference chain for the protein heritability carries directly to prions, which are infectuous agents. I'm more likely to get a prion by eating my Mom as opposed to inheriting it. More so, they affect neural tissue, not germ cells. As well, even if they were capable of self-assembly in a soup of amino acids (which I *doubt*), they still are diseases and not something heritable. Finally, as all prion prteins are minor structural variants of normal proteins that are assembled from regular, central dogma controlled paths, there is no reason to believe that prions actually violate the central dogma in the first place.

As such, if I don't see a reference in a reasonable period of time, I think we'd be better off deleting that sentence as opposed to keeping it. Further, the whole concept of an inheritable protein suggests that the protein _encodes_ information that affects my cell lines in a non-germ way. Having 1 protein from my pop in a sea of billions isn't enough to claim heritability; I'll get more proteins (unwanted) from viral infections in my lifetime.

Finally, histone and histone-like binding proteins may be said to have an effec t on 'expression' of proteins, but a couple histones I get from my Dad aren't going to have much effect on a mature adult with billions of cells. Histones, can, in theory, affect 'expression', but they carry no information per se, nor can they reproduce independently. They're as dependent on the central dogma as any other protein. Which of course, begs the question: if I didn't inherit that information from my Dad, how can I make those proteins in sufficient quantity to even make a difference?

The more I think of it, the more difficult I see the task of justifying a protein based scheme of heritability. The protein has to hitch a ride in egg or sperm, else its not inherited. The protein must then appear in quantity in both germ and cell lines, and must do so without *any* central dogma support (i.e. the protein must be capable of self assembly), else the protein is a consequence of the central dogma itself, not in opposition to it. The protein in question must do something useful that helps the organism to survive, else its simply a parasite, not a property of the human condition. Those are very difficult and stringent conditions, and really shouldn't be idly tossed into the soup, if the goal of this pedia is accuracy.dave

 * I agree, it's a pretty speculative possibility only likely to influence to evolution of things like bacteria--certainly nothing as large as a human. So it probably doesn't need to be mentioned here.  --LDC

Ok, I altered the sentence that bothered me most to:

 * In Darwin's time, there was no widely accepted in-depth mechanism for heritability. In modern times, the molecule that allows for                 heritability is known to be DNA, and the commonly accepted mechanism of expression of heritable information is called the Central                   Dogma

The reason being that the basics of reproduction had to be known in Darwin's time, that having sex led to offspring who had traits inherited from parents. Microscopes existed then, I'm sure von Leeuwenhook had seen sperm by then. What wasn't known was the mechanism of heritability at a molecular detail. I don't care for my writing and would invite others to think of a better way of expressing these notions. Dwmyers

When Darwin first published evolution, Jenkins came up with a very solid objection on the grounds that any individual variations would be watered down as they spread throughout the population, to the point where they effectively didn't exist. Mendelian genetics fixed that. I think the point here was to explain that.

- Dear Graft,

You removed my reference to prions, saying that it wasn't relevent. While a discussion of the nature of inheritance is not absolutely necessary in a section about natural selection, if we are to discuss genes we should also discuss other means of heretible variation such as prions and epigenetics. Perhaps all of this should go into a different section addressing the nature of variation. (as should the comment about natural selection permitting the long term survival of life, since it is variation that permits the long term survival of life. Natural Selection = Death) adam
 * Hi Adam... I removed the reference to prions because I don't think it has much to do with heritable variation as it relates to evolution or natural selection, especially insofar as the forms of prions found so far seem to be diseases that kill within a generation. So, while they might be taken as a form of 'heritable variation' from a certain point of view, they don't represent a) a significantly sized class of heritable variation when compared to heritable variation due to genes, b) heritable variation if you take that to mean something transmitted consistently across many generations, and c) a mechanism for selective pressure (beyond the selective pressure induced by having some prionic disease, i.e., instantaneous death).
 * Genes should definitely get first priority, but heretible prions have been thoroughly examined (see True and Lindquist "A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity" Nature, 407, pg 477 (28 september 2000). Here's a quote about Lindquist's work:
 * Both yeast and mammalian prions transmit phenotypes via protein-protein interactions, in which an abnormally shaped prion protein influences its normal counterpart to assume an abnormal shape. In mammalian prion infection, such abnormal, insoluble shapes cause protein clumping that kills brain cells. In yeast cells, however, the insoluble prion protein is not deadly, but it alters protein synthesis. http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist4.html
 * In this example, prions do have all of the traits that you listed above.
 * Epigenetic factors are I suppose interesting and worth discussing, but I think we'd be better off just saying that what we're talking about is DNA, not genes, since this would include chromosome rearrangements and such and would preclude a larger and unnecessary discussion of the types of DNA variations we're talking about within the body of this Evolution article. Graft
 * Genetic and epigenetic factors have different means of inheritance; epigenetic factors (and prions) have the ability to "convert" similar genetic factors, and this conversion ability can be influenced by environmental factors. Granted, we don't know of many examples where these were influential, so genes should get the main emphasis, but I believe that once we understand more about the mechanisms behind prions and epigenetics, we will find more examples of them.
 * Well, frankly I think epigenetics is a bit faddish, but I haven't read an extraordinary amount on it. At any rate I think at this point most of the interesting aspects of epigenetics rest on speculation and the people who write/study it are interested in building it up to be more than it probably is. Sure, it might have dramatic implications for evolution, but then, the far side of Alpha Centauri might be made of Swiss cheese, and think of the dramatic implications that has... Soy muy esceptico. Graft

Maybe this should be addressed in biological inheritance

Edited the heredity and genes section. There were some glaring errors eg. Genes were defined as chains of amino acids. Fixed this, significantly changed th heredity section and added the types of mutations ie. point and chromosomal. --MattDal 12:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evolution view point for dicussion
THE ETERNAL QUESTION??

The evolution of life forms has been a matter for discussion over the centuries. The discussion has been progressed by philosophers, scientists, astro physicists, religious doctorines, politicians, astronomers and astrologers and most other disciplines in society.

As such, one cannot discount or disregard any of these thought processes. Each discipline has its own benchmarks for validation and verification of their doctrines.

These disciplines, even though on the face of it, are mutually exclusive, but one has to accept the possibility of cross integration between them.

The possibility of a supreme being has been given the name of God or Allah or Bhagwan or Jehovah or supreme energy or a superior alien race or the great white light, amongst other nomenclatures.

One thing common amongst all these through civilisations, is the analogy to something which humans have considered a power superior to themselves. Religion has relied on blind faith. Scientists are in a quandary, as the basis of science is the ability to explain something implicitly. This is not possible, when it is knowledge beyond civilisations current understanding at that time.

There was a time when cultures believed in aspects of nature as the Supreme Being. Some still do. However, every time civilisation develops understanding of something, it leads to the question of what created that which is understood. And once again, the debate and discussion resumes where it started.

Scientists believe that they know everything, well almost. But if one considers any point in time in history, the human race thought what they knew then was the ultimate truth. Any other thoughts were suppressed in one for or another. However, it is in the human nature, of SOME (I will return to this later on), to push against the boundaries of current understanding and progress it in some way.

Where would we be without people like Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Homer, Socrates, Aristotle, Egyptian pyramid architects, Leonardo D Vinci, Mendelssohn, Christopher Columbus, Darwin, Bach, Mozart, Albert Einstein to name just a few. Each was radical in their doctrines in their lifetime.

The argument I put to people who advocate that human understanding about everything has progressed so much, that there is very little yet to be discovered! If this was the case, would we not still believe that the world was flat? Would we know about the number ZERO? (If that can be classed as a number!!)Would we know how to pasteurise milk? Would we know about space and other galaxies and planets? Would we appreciate that light can bend round corners? Would we understand the speed of light and time? Would we understand that an atom could be split? Would we know that machines as small as a pin head could perform trillions of calculations per second? There are a whole plethora of instances, where knowledge has been undergone a quantum leap. So to discount the possibility of such an event happening again is surely not a defendable argument. It is a comfortable situation to let others do the thinking and exploring for some. Expediency is comforting but rarely moves knowledge further. There has to be a position, a very high one, for radical thought. We have to aim higher than our reach, WHAT ELSE IS A HEAVEN FOR??

Let us start from a view point of not trying to reinvent the wheel. If we assume the statement of various doctrines as true.

If we consider a pyramid structure of gene proliferation. ‘The Selfish Gene’(Dr.Richard Dawkins) principle, though a valid theory, I feel is not complete in itself.

Same is true for natural selection (Charles Darwin) as a representation of evolution.

If we consider, that the real meaning of life is self propagation of the gene pool. The genes are pre-programmed to behave in a certain manner. However, there are different types of genes. Starting from the MASTER genes at the top of the pyramid, with the common genes at the bottom. The shape of the multi dimensional pyramid holds a constant ratio of angles, much akin to the ratios of the ‘magic triangle’. The number of genes at the bottom is proportionately greater than those above it and so on until we reach the top. Natural selection occurs at each level. Thus, at the bottom, natural selection occurs at a larger number than above it, however, the net effect is less apparent.

This also explains why in earlier civilisations and cultures, communication between the bottom and top of the pyramid seems easier. This is because the distance between them is smaller. As civilisations have expanded, the greatest increase has been at the bottom on the pyramid, as a result, increasing the distance to the top.

At any point in time, genes are programmed more directly by the ones immediately above it and so there is a greater dilution from the top.

What about the other side of the coin? DEVIL? SHAITAN? SATAN?

Well this too forms a pyramidical structure.Only; it is a mirror image of the ‘GOOD’ pyramid.

The battlefront is at the interface of the two pyramids at each level. Depending on who wins, dictates which pyramid grows faster than the other.

This also leads to explain the concept of Armageddon, Judgement Day, Kalyug, End of the World scenarios, amongst other similar concepts.

It would be close minded to assume that the top and for that matter, the bottom of the pyramid exist on Earth. There is no reason why we are not just somewhere in the pyramid. The top and for that matter the bottom may be on another battlefront. Earth is simply one part of the whole picture.

However, some estimation can be made. If we look at the population at any given point in time on earth, (one that we can measure), we can interpolate backwards and forwards to gain an insight to a frame of reference and infer a possible scenario for the future.

This aspect of research and debate and discussion can benefit from using the power of the brain.Well, surely two minds is better than one, and so far onwards exponentially.

There are various other ideas to explore. I would very much appreciate input from others on this.

 * Monami, it seems you and I stepped on each other putting this back. Sorry about that. Please procede, as long as you don't remove the comment. Thanks. -Harmil 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evolution/Inheritance and genetics


text:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article written by the physicist Eugene Wigner, published in Communication in Pure and Applied Mathematics. In it, Wigner observes that a theoretical physics's mathematical structure often points the way to further advances in that theory and to empirical predictions. Mathematical theories often have predictive power in describing nature.

Observations and Arguments
Wigner argues that mathematical concepts have applicability far beyond the context in which they were originally developed. He writes: "It is important to point out that the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena." He adds that the observation "the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics," properly made by Galileo three hundred years ago, "is now truer than ever before."

Wigner's first example is the law of gravitation formulated by Isaac Newton. Originally used to model freely falling bodies on the surface of the Earth, this law was extended based on what Wigner terms "very scanty observations" to describe the motion of the planets, where it "has proved accurate beyond all reasonable expectations." Wigner says that "Newton... noted that the parabola of the thrown rock's path on the earth and the circle of the moon's path in the sky are particular cases of the same mathematical object of an ellipse, and postulated the universal law of gravitation on the basis of a single, and at that time very approximate, numerical coincidence."

Wigner's second example comes from quantum mechanics: Max Born "noticed that some rules of computation, given by Heisenberg, were formally identical with the rules of computation with matrices, established a long time before by mathematicians. Born, Jordan, and Heisenberg then proposed to replace by matrices the position and momentum variables of the equations of classical mechanics. They applied the rules of matrix mechanics to a few highly idealized problems and the results were quite satisfactory. However, there was, at that time, no rational evidence that their matrix mechanics would prove correct under more realistic conditions." But Wolfgang Pauli found their work accurately described the hydrogen atom: "This application gave results in agreement with experience." The helium atom, with two electrons, is more complex, but "nevertheless, the calculation of the lowest energy level of helium, as carried out a few months ago by Kinoshita at Cornell and by Bazley at the Bureau of Standards, agrees with the experimental data within the accuracy of the observations, which is one part in ten million. Surely in this case we 'got something out' of the equations that we did not put in." The same is true of the atomic spectra of heavier elements.

Wigner's last example comes from quantum electrodynamics: "Whereas Newton's theory of gravitation still had obvious connections with experience, experience entered the formulation of matrix mechanics only in the refined or sublimated form of Heisenberg's prescriptions. The quantum theory of the Lamb shift, as conceived by Bethe and established by Schwinger, is a purely mathematical theory and the only direct contribution of experiment was to show the existence of a measurable effect. The agreement with calculation is better than one part in a thousand."

There are examples beyond the ones mentioned by Wigner. Another often cited example is Maxwell's equations, derived to model the elementary electrical and magnetic phenomena known in the mid-19th century. The equations also describe radio waves, discovered by David Edward Hughes in 1879, around the time of James Clerk Maxwell's death.

Responses
Amongst the responses the thesis received include:
 * Richard Hamming in computer science, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics".
 * Arthur Lesk in molecular biology, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Molecular Biology".
 * Peter Norvig in artificial intelligence, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data"
 * Max Tegmark in physics, "The Mathematical Universe".
 * Ivor Grattan-Guinness in mathematics, "Solving Wigner's mystery: The reasonable (though perhaps limited) effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences".
 * Vela Velupillai in economics, "The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics in Economics".

Richard Hamming
Mathematician and Turing Award laureate Richard Hamming reflected on and extended Wigner's Unreasonable Effectiveness in 1980, discussing four "partial explanations" for it, and concluding that they were unsatisfactory. They were:

1. Humans see what they look for. The belief that science is experimentally grounded is only partially true. Hamming gives four examples of nontrivial physical phenomena he believes arose from the mathematical tools employed and not from the intrinsic properties of physical reality.
 * Hamming proposes that Galileo discovered the law of falling bodies not by experimenting, but by simple, though careful, thinking. Hamming imagines Galileo as having engaged in the following thought experiment (the experiment, which Hamming calls "scholastic reasoning", is described in Galileo's book On Motion.):

 * "Suppose that a falling body broke into two pieces. Of course, the two pieces would immediately slow down to their appropriate speeds. But suppose further that one piece happened to touch the other one. Would they now be one piece and both speed up? Suppose I tie the two pieces together. How tightly must I do it to make them one piece? A light string? A rope? Glue? When are two pieces one?"

 * There is simply no way a falling body can "answer" such hypothetical "questions." Hence Galileo would have concluded that "falling bodies need not know anything if they all fall with the same velocity, unless interfered with by another force." After coming up with this argument, Hamming found a related discussion in Pólya (1963: 83-85). Hamming's account does not reveal an awareness of the 20th-century scholarly debate over just what Galileo did.

 * The inverse square law of universal gravitation necessarily follows from the conservation of energy and of space having three dimensions. Measuring the exponent in the law of universal gravitation is more a test of whether space is Euclidean than a test of the properties of the gravitational field.
 * The inequality at the heart of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics follows from the properties of Fourier integrals and from assuming time invariance.
 * Hamming argues that Albert Einstein's pioneering work on special relativity was largely "scholastic" in its approach. He knew from the outset what the theory should look like (although he only knew this because of the Michelson–Morley experiment), and explored candidate theories with mathematical tools, not actual experiments. Hamming alleges that Einstein was so confident that his relativity theories were correct that the outcomes of observations designed to test them did not much interest him. If the observations were inconsistent with his theories, it would be the observations that were at fault.

2. Humans create and select the mathematics that fit a situation. The mathematics at hand does not always work. For example, when mere scalars proved awkward for understanding forces, first vectors, then tensors, were invented.

3. Mathematics addresses only a part of human experience. Much of human experience does not fall under science or mathematics but under the philosophy of value, including ethics, aesthetics, and political philosophy. To assert that the world can be explained via mathematics amounts to an act of faith.

4. Evolution has primed humans to think mathematically. The earliest lifeforms must have contained the seeds of the human ability to create and follow long chains of close reasoning.

Max Tegmark
Physicist Max Tegmark argued that the effectiveness of mathematics in describing external physical reality is because the physical world is an abstract mathematical structure. This theory, referred to as the mathematical universe hypothesis, mirrors ideas previously advanced by Peter Atkins. However, Tegmark explicitly states that "the true mathematical structure isomorphic to our world, if it exists, has not yet been found." Rather, mathematical theories in physics are successful because they approximate more complex and predictive mathematics. According to Tegmark, "Our successful theories are not mathematics approximating physics, but simple mathematics approximating more complex mathematics."

Ivor Grattan-Guinness
Ivor Grattan-Guinness found the effectiveness in question eminently reasonable and explicable in terms of concepts such as analogy, generalization, and metaphor.

Michael Atiyah
The tables were turned by Michael Atiyah with his essay "The unreasonable effectiveness of physics in mathematics." He argued that the toolbox of physics enables a practitioner like Edward Witten to go beyond standard mathematics, in particular the geometry of 4-manifolds. The tools of a physicist are cited as quantum field theory, special relativity, non-abelian gauge theory, spin, chirality, supersymmetry, and the electromagnetic duality.