text:
Talk:Phylogenetic tree

You can merge the two files
You can merge the two files, as long as you include a separate definition inside of it. Phylogenetic trees are stated as relationship hypotheses; evolutionary trees should include time and fossil information. Anonymous, 22:50 18 Jun 2006

Don't we have evidence that the eukariotes are formed by branches merging? What does that do to the neat figure? Drobinsonatlaur 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very stylish. Wetman 10:07, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
 * but do we have refs?
 * and not quite accurate, as the evolutionary trees, however based on evidence, are also hypotheses, which will be corrected or confirmed by firther evidence. For example, the very topmost node of fig.1, properly labeled "speculative" is probably wrong, as the fungi+animals form a separate branch from the plants → Fungus.
 * is it considered acceptable to draw a tree with a three-way split to indicate lack of knowledge? A non-biologist might think it represented something that coud happen.DGG 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Some information on how phylogentic trees are computed from genome sequences would be nice. There doesn't seem to be awfully much material on that on the web. 62.227.165.193 20:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * there is more now, and all the sequences on Entrez, and it should be added. At the least a stub shoud be written so it can be linked to. The page DNA sequencing treats it as a biochemical technique only. What shall we call it, though? (btw, I do not have the knowledge to write the page)DGG 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) Barnaby dawson 22:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * not just beween creationists and evolutionists, but also different theories of the creationists, The "young earth" people are the ones in the news, but the "old earth" people, who consider supernatural influence only at key points (such as the origin of the phyla) have a much more elaborate arguement. I almost wrote "much more sophisticated."
 * Has an work been done on this page since 2005?DGG 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page entitled Views of Flat Earthers and mainstream scientists compared? Or one called Views of People Who Think Disease Is Causes By Ill Humours and mainstream scientists compared? Wake up people and move on. Jeffgwatts (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but there is a page entitled Straw Man. 174.20.246.198 (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Extinct species in trees?!
From the article, "Trees that do not include extinct species must also be interpreted with care." (emphasis mine)

I think this should read "Trees that include extinct species must also be interpreted with care." This is because extinct species may or may not be terminal nodes, the likelihood that they are terminal nodes, however, is very high (see coalescence (genetics)); however, they have often been placed on internal nodes in the past. These are the trees one should be wary of. Anyone differ? - Samsara 15:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Evolutionary tree"
Largely semantics but I do not think there is such a thing as an evolutionary tree (entirely possible I could be wrong) as such I feel like searching for an 'evolutionary tree' should return a phylogenetic tree. Ho

Merge this with Evolutionary tree
As far as I can determine by googling the subject, an "evolutionary tree" is the same as a "phylogenetic tree". Therefore, I suggest that we merge the two pages.

According to this article, "phylogenetic tree" is the more technical term. Therefore, I suggest that we merge the evolutionary tree article into this one (although the reverse is also possible. SpectrumDT 11:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --KimvdLinde 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also agree. I'll take a stab at it. - Samsara contrib talk 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sitting on the fence now. It seems that evolutionary tree concerns itself with the current consensus tree, whereas phylogenetic tree is about the theory behind trees in general, and the tree of life in particular. So, evolutionary tree should really be called tree of life, but that article is already taken; perhaps tree of life (biology)? - Samsara contrib talk 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * And how about origin of life? - Samsara contrib talk 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think still merge. The images at this page are phylogenetic trees matching the worked out tree of evolutionay tree. --KimvdLinde 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The origin of life page is not very much overlapping with neither this nor evolutionary tree. Origin of life is about the processes that create life, not about the exact evolutionary "path" taken by the various species. SpectrumDT 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, this question is out there for already 2 weeks, so if there is not overriding objection, I wll merge them somewhere during the weekend... --KimvdLinde 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Phylogenetic trees are not restricted to evolutionary links. It can also represent a heirarchal taxonomy tree.  I suggest leaving the two seperate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.162.134.163 (talk • contribs).

 * That is no argument against having the tree of life as an example of applied phylogenetics in this article. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Looking at the articles, the major difference at present is that the PT article explains the theory (or at least one view of the theory)  and the ET is a somewhat simplified presentation. The names unfortunately do not make this clear. I am not sure there is agreement on all the theoretical positions take in the PT article, including the one below. Further, the PhyloCode article very properly says "The PhyloCode is controversial. The number of supporters for official adoption of the PhyloCode is still small, and it is uncertain, as of 2006, when the code will be implemented and how widely it will be followed."  It's a rather technical article, and probably should be kept separate, just as the articles on the separate codes are. It mentions "The Second International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting took place June 28 – July 2, 2006." I don't know what was said there, but it would be relevant. As a non-specialist in nomenclature, just a biologist,  I feel it is better to have a single code, but my feelings won't determine the outcome. If we don't merge we are presenting each party to the arguments in a separate article--quite regardless of NPOV, it is in this case confusing to the user of WP. The information he will get is determined by what term he happens to start with. The separate articles are not long, aand many of the references shoud be the same.

Even the single "don't merge" comment by RickReinckens can be taked as supporting the merger DGG 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Disagree The evolutionary tree article needs to deal with issues about the actual history of life including lateral gene transfer. The phylogenetics article is about a tool which we use to analyse data concerning the history of life which does not deal well with all possibilities (for example lateral gene transfer).  These two things should not be confused and ought to have separate articles.  The evolutionary tree article needs to include more information concerning the subtleties of the subject matter.  Barnaby dawson 07:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think the phylogenetics article can possibly be about the actual history of life. To the extent that it discusses particlar groups, even broad groups like kingdoms, the information goes with the stuff being discussed. To the extent is deals with spcific processes, it goes with the process. There's an article on horizontal gene transfer  Phylogenetics isn't a tool, it a field of study, not a single method or tool.  As applied in a rough outline, suitable for an elementary article in an encyclopedia, it is well illustrated by the evolutionary tree in more or less its customary form, with horizontal gene transfer seen as an overlay, possibly accounting for some of the drastic changes that didn't make much sense otherwise.  If  everything at the root evolutionary level is a melange of genomes, then we do not have a tree overall, and need another metaphor, and more complicated diagrams. We might still have a tree for phyla, or within phyla, at least until more sequencing gets done.   The "subtleties of the subject matter" go with the organisms or the processes.

I accept there's been a long discussion on this. I also accept that there is no single way of doing it, but it does have to be done either one way, or the other. Perhaps the way to go is to try writing it both ways and see what's possible and helpful. (This is not an offer to do it myself just now :) DGG 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I was bold and merge evolutionary tree into this article before I read the talk page. my bad. I agree that they are separate entities, but I think one article would suffice. I guess we can undo my changes if people think otherwise. --Rajah 21:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge

 * From the Phylogenic Tree article (hi-lited):

 * "By their very nature, phylogenetic trees cannot represent actual evolutionary patterns and are in fact distorted by any lateral gene transfer[5] or hybridisation between species that are not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place. For these reasons, the proposed PhyloCode . . . does not assume a tree structure."

 * They are saying that this is a different way of thinking about the material being examined. It would be like merging articles on Quantum gravity and M-Theory.
 * These articles should cross-reference each other, not be merged.
 * The Evolutionary Tree article should be expanded.
 * Many people have heard of "evolutionary tree". Few have heard of phylogenetic tree. If anything, "phylogenetic tree" should be merged into evolutionary tree and not vice versa.

RickReinckens 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall view
As the layman will not know the precise distinction, perhaps it is more important to have a single article, than worry about the name. I agree with the comment above that the best-known term is evolutionary tree. The various detailed meanings & implications can be explained in the article. Equally impt would be to have a single presentation for all the kingdom, etc. pages, as there is no agreement among them. The existence of different hypotheses can also be discussed once, with the refs, and then referred to. NPOV should be possible, as the disagreements are fundamentaly over which set of genes is the more important, and this is still mainly a matter of opinion. What I think we should avoid is going over the same ground repeatedly, with the same arguments and examples and variant views. that's confusing rather than neutral. Neutral is expressing the different hypotheses clearly and accurately; that's hard enough, bit we should only have to deal with it once.DGG 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another opinion
Initially, I thought they should be merged. As an evolutionary biologist who uses phylogenetic methods to infer evolutionary history, I definitely blur the distinction between "evolutionary tree" and "phylogenetic tree." But there is a fundamental difference, as pointed out by RickReinckens. I think we do indeed have a problem if laypeople search for "evolutionary tree" and end up with this largely technical article about phylogenetics. I suggest we move a lot of this material over to phylogenetics, where it belongs, and change this article to evolutionary tree, if that is truly the term that laypeople will be familiar with. -Safay 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was there a merger?
Looking at the history of this article and the discussion, I can't see why the merger took place, i.e. I can't see that there was a consensus among editors to do this.

 * An 'evolutionary tree' represents a hypothesis about the evolutionary relationships among the taxonomic units shown in the tree. The evidence for the tree/hypothesis may be morphological or genetic or some mixture. Evolutionary trees for long extinct species are necessarily based only on morphology, since genetic analysis is not possible.

 * A 'phylogenetic tree' is a particular kind of 'evolutionary tree' in which genetic analysis provides all or most of the evidence for the tree/hypothesis. In recent usage, it almost always means a tree produced by an automated method (i.e. by one of a number of available computer packages).

It doesn't seem to me that the article conveys this at all. I'm reluctant to add anything without understanding the views of previous editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First use of a tree to represent evolutionary history?
Does anyone know of the first use of a tree to represent evolutionary history? Darwin has his diagram in On the Origin..., but does anyone know of another before that? This would make an interesting historical addition to an article about evolutionary trees. -Safay 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming
Discussion about renaming Category:Tree of life to Category:Organisms: Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10.--ragesoss 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Limitations category lacking
There aren't any references cited for the limitations of phylogenetic trees. Also, calling ancient DNA "little useful" is a little vague and misleading. I can root around for some references if necessary. --Estelahe 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When extinct species are included in a tree, they should always be terminal nodes, as it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species
When extinct species are included in a tree, they should always be terminal nodes, as it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species

Why is that? It makes absolutely no sense to me, that the direct ancestor of a living species is most likely to also be a living species. I would think that would actually be quite rare. Can someone point me to a multi-celled living species whose direct ancestor is also living????? 24.11.53.10 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=1

"Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.199.83 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Classification
Acoording to the Department of Biology, University of Oslo, the eukaryots are divided in
 * plants
 * ophistokonts
 * excavates
 * SAR (newly added branch; used to be chromoalveolates and rhizaria)

Dont see this classification anywhere, please inlclude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.162.121 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The stupid and insulting phrase
The main article states in part "... various biological species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor." The word "believed" is not appropriate: common descent is an observed fact, and it requires no belief. I have corrected the article. --Desertphile (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So you were there to observe it? And "fact." My aren't we good a hyperbole.--TDurden1937 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead
Rogue-pilot recently changed the opening sentence from:
 * A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities that are known to have a common ancestor.

to
 * A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a tree that ostensibly shows the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities that are modeled as having a common ancestor.

The edit was undone by 3 different users, but it keeps being restored. I don't want to get into an edit war (though Rogue-pilot is already in violation of 3RR), but the original version has been stable indicating a de-facto consensus, and the change has not been sourced (not to mention that it seems specious), so I'm just checking here to see if there is consensus to go back to the previous version. Rogue-pilot, it would be great if you could discuss it here instead of changing the article repeatedly without sources or explanation. (I think I would change the end of the sentence to ...biological species or other entities that have a common ancestor." "...are known to have a common ancestor" seems unnecessarily wordy to me.) Thoughts? Dawn Bard (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was confused for more than a month from this phrase: "common ancestor". I had to look at numerous sources (too bad I cannot site any one here) and I had to verify this with a genetics professor. I concluded that we can talk about ancestry (not only common ancestor, but also the higher node as ancestor to lower nodes or leaves), only in rooted trees. In unrooted trees, we can only say that the leaves are ancestors to no other node. We can make no other assumption about ancestry in unrooted trees. Leontaurus (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1
Before my edit, this sentence appeared in the History section: "Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because the floral analogy effectively conveys the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptiveand random splitting of lineages." At first I had no idea what was meant by "the floral analogy" (and the links to "flora" and "analogy" didn't help me). I think it was meant to mean that tree diagrams are a 'floral analogy'. Well, they are an 'analogy' but not a 'floral' one in the usual meaning of 'floral', i.e. they have nothing to do with flowers. I've changed 'the floral analogy' to 'such diagrams', which I think is much clearer. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit 2
Before my edit, this paragraph appeared in the History section:

 * Adolf Engler (1844 - 1930) and Karl A. E. Prantl (1849 - 1893) published a system of plant classification in their monograph Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. In it, they arranged the families and orders of flowering plants on the basis of complexity of floral morphology. Characters like a perianth with one whorl, unisexual flowers and pollination by wind were considered primitive as compared to perianth with two whorls, bisexual flowers and pollination by insects.[1]

This is undoubtedly true, but not, as far as I can see, of any relevance. The Engler system is not primarily an evolutionary tree and certainly not a phylogenetic tree. It's a 'Chain of Being' type view, based on ideas of what characters are 'primitive' and what are 'advanced'. Hence I've removed this paragraph entirely. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit 3
This paragraph:
 * The plant kingdom is further divided into divisions, sub-divisions, classes, orders and families. According to this system, monocotyledons are considered more primitive than dicotyledons. It also considers evolution of angiosperms from a single source and the sequence of orders and families show parallel evolution.

was, I think, meant to follow on from the paragraph about the Engler system (assuming that the "It" in the second sentence refers to the Engler system). As I don't think that the previous paragraph is relevant, I've removed this too. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The genetic core of the universal ancestor
Useful resources can be drawn from the following journal reference: It contains examples of three-domain and non-three-domain phylogenetic trees from analyses of the COG database protein alignments.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 05:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Language use
I fixed the article per MOS:ANDOR. It's better to avoid its use in articles. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Convergent evolution?
In the section on limitations, it claims that "convergent evolution" can be a confounder for creating phylogenetic trees based on genome sequencing. This seems unlikely, as convergent evolution is in almost all cases the evolution of similar features with a distinct genetic basis. To reproduce the exact same sequence of mutations is a quite different matter. Am I right in suggesting "convergent evolution" should really be deleted from the sentence: "The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences."? – Elroch 13:29, 23 November 2014

 * Consider the central point made in this paper: The genes for photosystem II appear to have undergone parallel reductions to a single copy in the plastids of different lineages of plants. So the genetic sequences are misleadingly similar. This is certainly a kind of "convergent evolution", although deeper analysis may show that the genetic changes were not precisely the same (since different copies may have been lost). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Braided river of life
hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
 * old/| new|/

Inter species hybridization is by definition the reason (if species are defined as population exchanging genes via sexual reproduction) to downgrading such species to subspecies status. Taxonomic reconsideration may by slow down by various species concepts and pragmatic conservatism in taxonomic namingand and other factors. To overcome limitations of structure of phylogenetic tree is proposed braided river concept. Flowing trough time, bifurcating and merging, surging on obstacles but trying to flow with some branched channels silting to dry. This Braided river reticulate streams of life exchanging genetic information in 4d space is proposed as long overdue paradigm change in diversity conceptualization of phylogenetic evolution.

now what ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, first let's have the correct doi links:
 * Then, when I look at the two papers, it doesn't seem to me that they are primarily concerned with the limitations of phylogenetic trees. There's definitely a need for more sources for the section Phylogenetic tree, particularly the last paragraph that mentions phylogenetic networks, but the above two are not the right papers for this.
 * So, apart from the fact that the English in the reverted addition is very hard to understand, and would need a great deal of copy-editing to make sense of it, I don't think the addition is relevantly sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, when I look at the two papers, it doesn't seem to me that they are primarily concerned with the limitations of phylogenetic trees. There's definitely a need for more sources for the section Phylogenetic tree, particularly the last paragraph that mentions phylogenetic networks, but the above two are not the right papers for this.
 * So, apart from the fact that the English in the reverted addition is very hard to understand, and would need a great deal of copy-editing to make sense of it, I don't think the addition is relevantly sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Cladograms (special tree types)
The article, in describing a cladogram, says that its internal nodes do not represent ancestors. As written, this seems nonsensical. It is at the very least contrary to the article on cladograms. It may be an attempt to say that ancestors represented by nodes in a cladogram are not necessarily already identified, but possibly are inferred. If howls of protest do not arise, I'll probably return sometime soon and edit accordingly. Aboctok (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A perennial difficulty is describing cladograms is the vagueness of terminology. When trees (neutral wording) are generated by almost all current programs, the internal nodes show the branching, and do not show ancestors, real or hypothetical. Whatever data you input, all units end up as leaves. Some programs infer the states of the internal nodes, but if you then add a unit with such a state to the input data, it will end up as a leaf. So it is far from nonsensical. Some authors have tried to use terms like "phylogram" for trees with 'real' internal nodes as opposed to "cladograms" in which only branching is indicated, but this hasn't caught on. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Add reference to Pace
This article references Woese, but not Norman R. Pace. Here is an earlier good reference for both: Pace, N.R., G.J. Olsen, and C.R. Woese. (1986). Ribosomal RNA phylogeny and the primary lines of evolutionary descent. Cell 45:325-326. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Trees being "speculative"
I removed the word "speculative" from the "rooted tree for rRNA genes" figure legend, as this word is misleading. Phylogenetic trees are NOT "speculative" when they are based on DNA (or RNA) data (as in this case). One can argue that phylogenetic relationships are flawed by an erroneous algorithm or too little data, but a phylogenetic tree is simply a representation of similarities and thus a hypothesis about phylogenetic relationships. The figure legend was used by a creationist on Quora to "demonstrate" the "speculative" nature of evolution. Given that there is nothing speculative about evolution itself, I removed the word "speculative" as it (wrongly) indicates that a phylogenetic tree is just guesswork, which it is not. Peteruetz (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * no, this is not the issue. The original caption said "A speculatively rooted tree ...". As the section Phylogenetic tree states, but doesn't explain, to root a tree with certainty requires an outgroup, but there is no outgroup for life as a whole. So the position of the root is speculative: the caption is correctly read as "A speculatively-rooted tree" not "A speculative rooted-tree"; the adverb "speculatively" has to qualify the adjectival "rooted", not the noun "tree". Remove "rooted" and you get nonsense: "A speculatively tree". I've now tried a longer qualification to avoid the possibility of this misreading. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the tree should be sourced; there's more than one hypothesis available for the relationship between bacteria, archaeans and eukaryotes. (See, e.g., Neomura.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "original caption" said " A phylogenetic tree of living things ..." -- just look at the figure file. I don't know where the "speculative" comes from but it's NOT from the original caption. Peteruetz (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But Peter_coxhead just explained this. The "speculative" applies to the rootedness of the tree.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Order of branches
Is my understanding correct that the order of branches (that is the order resulting from the sum of decisions at each branching point which branch to depict to the left and which to the right – in a tree that shows time on a vertical axis) is arbitrary? Are there any conventions for these individual decisions? Is there any special tree type for which the order is not arbitrary? ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) If it helps, one can limit the question to trees that show only extant species. The order, then, would simply be the order of the branches at the crown of the tree. ◅ Sebastian 11:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Three Domain Hypothesis
This is an article about phylogenetic trees—what they are and how to construct them. It is not an article about the tree of life and various models about the relationships between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

The history section needs a lot of work. It should describe the first trees based on the sequences of molecules from the early 1960s and why such trees are possible (the Neutral Theory). It should NOT say that that Woese's ribosomal RNA tree (Three Domains) is the first molecular tree and it should certainly not imply that this is the modern view especially since the main Wikipedia article (Three-domain system) specifically points out that it is no longer the preferred model of eukaryote evolution.

I have reverted the recent edits that misrepresent the history of molecular trees and the current consensus model of the origin of eukaryotes. Genome42 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * It is not justified to remove the three-domain tree. Of course all scientific theories are hypotheses remaining a topic of debate. Anyhow, the three-domain system has become textbook knowledge (e.g. up to now in the recent Brock Biology of Microorganisms, 2022, Unit 3, p.434, 435).
 * Where are the references for trees based on molecular phylogenetics from the early 1960ies? The history of research on microbial evolution and of different tree concepts has been documented comprehensively by evolutionary biologist and scientific historian Jan Sapp (The New Foundations of Evolution: On the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press, 2009). His book is also cited in Wikipedia article “Three-domain system” you mentioned. The so called Neutral Theory does not deal with phylogenetic trees, but with “the evolution of proteins and nucleic acids without selection” (see Jan Sapp, p.130).
 * The figure of the tree for blind people (in chapter “rooted tree”) shows exactly the structure of the three-domain tree from Woese et al. 1990. It is not correct to ignore the original. Maya Kandler (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The current consensus view on the origin of eukaryotes is that they arose from a fusion of an alphaproteobacterium and an archaebacterium from the Asgard superphylum. What this means is that the Archaea ancestor of eukaryotes comes from WITHIN the Archaea domain so that eukaryotes are NOT a separate domain. What it also means is that the ancestor of at least half of the genes in eukaryotes is bacterial, not Archaeal.
 * The Three Domain Hypothesis is refuted on both grounds. It has been replaced by a Two Domain tree with the formation of eukaryotes making a ring of life. This is not particularly controversial among knowledgeable scientists who study the origin of eukaryotes.
 * The two key papers on molecular phylogenies from the early 1960s are Margoliash (1963) and Zuckerkandl & Pauling (1965) although, admittedly, Margoliash didn't draw a tree in that paper. The essential paper on constructing molecular phylogenetic trees is Fitch and Margoliash (1967).
 * The Neutral Theory is absolutely crucial for understanding the molecular clock. You can't explain molecular phylogenetic trees if you don't understand why there's an approximate molecular clock.
 * The Three Domain figure for blind people is also incorrect and should be removed from an encyclopedia article on phylogenetic trees unless it's just there for historical purposes to show what people used to think before better data became available. Genome42 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The “current consensus view on the origin of the eucaryotes” is just another hypothesis. It has to be taken into account that the so-called Asgard superphylum belongs to a group of as yet uncultured phyla “so far identified only through PCR-based and metagenomic surveys” (Brock, 2022, p.703, see also p. 607).
 * “Knowledgeable scientists” use the term Archaea, not the preceding term archaeabacteria. Maya Kandler (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Check out the Wikipedia article on Archaea. You'll see that the Asgard superphylum (Asgardaeota) is nested well within the Archaea domain so that even if you eliminate all the genomes from uncultured species the Archaeal portion of eukayotic genomes still falls WITHIN Archaea. What this means is that one of the ancestors of eukaryotes was not part of a separate eukaryote domain.
 * The other half of eukaryotic genomes still falls within Bacteria, specifically alphaproteobacteria. The Wikipedia article on Bacteria has a nice phylogenetic tree showing the relationship of Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. Look in the section on Bacteria. Genome42 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phylogenetic tree


text:
Pine siskin

The pine siskin (Spinus pinus) is a North American bird in the finch family. It is a migratory bird with an extremely sporadic winter range.

Taxonomy
The pine siskin was formally described in 1810 by the American ornithologist Alexander Wilson under the binomial name Fringilla pinus. The specific epithet pinus is the Latin word for a "pine-tree". The type locality is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The pine siskin is now placed in the genus Spinus that was introduced in 1816 by the German naturalist Carl Ludwig Koch in 1816.

Three subspecies are recognised:
 * S. p. pinus (Wilson, A, 1810) – Alaska, Canada and west, northeast USA
 * S. p. macropterus (Bonaparte, 1850) – northwest and central Mexico
 * S. p. perplexus Van Rossem, 1938 – south Mexico to Guatemala

Description
These birds are fairly small, being around the same size as the widespread American goldfinch. In both sexes, total length can range from 11 –, with a wingspan of 18 – and weight of 12 - 18 g.

Adults are brown on the upperparts and pale on the underparts, with heavy streaking throughout. They have short forked tails. Their bills are conical like most finches but are more elongated and slender than those of other co-occurring finches. Variably, pine siskins have yellow patches on their wings and tails, which may also consist of white streaks on the wings. Although they can be confused by the more inexperienced for other finches or even American sparrows, pine siskins are distinguished by their heavy streaking, relatively slender bills, notched tail, yellow or whitish patches on the wings and smallish size.

Separation from the Eurasian siskin
The pine siskin in its typical morph is a drab bird, whereas the Eurasian siskin (a bird the species does not naturally co-exist with), in many plumages, is much brighter. Adult male Eurasian siskins are bright green and yellow with a black cap, and an unstreaked throat and breast; the pine siskin does not have a corresponding bright plumage. Adult female Eurasian siskins also usually have green and yellow plumage tones: for example, yellow in the supercilium and on the sides of the breast, green tones in the mantle and yellow in the rump. Adult pine siskins of the typical morph do not have green and yellow tones, although juveniles can have a yellowish-buff wash on their underparts and buff-toned wingbars, for a short period prior to their autumn migration. The ground colour of the underparts of the Eurasian siskin is normally pure white, whereas on the pine siskin it is usually a dirtier colour. In female and juvenile Eurasian siskins, the centre of the belly and lower breast are often largely or entirely unstreaked, whereas in most pine siskins the streaking extends across the whole of the underparts. The wingbars of the Eurasian siskin are broad and yellow (with the tips white) whereas they are normally narrower and buffish white in the pine siskin, contrasting with the bright yellow flash at the base of the primaries. Pine siskins have a longer bill, usually with a straight culmen, compare with a short bill in Eurasian siskins, with a decurved culmen. There is a green morph of the pine siskin, closer in appearance to the Eurasian siskin; these birds make up only 1% of the population. These are closer in appearance to female Eurasian siskins, but differ in that they have a yellow wash on the undertail-coverts (white on the Eurasian siskin), no yellow in the supercilium, reduced underparts streaking, and much yellow at the base of the tail and remiges; there may also be a difference in the extent of yellow in the underparts, but this needs further study.

Distribution and habitat
Their breeding range spreads across almost the entirety of Canada, Alaska and, to a more variable degree, across the western mountains and northern parts of the United States. As their name indicates, the species occurs mostly as a breeder in open conifer forests. Northern pine forests support the majority of the species' breeding population. However, stands of ornamental conifers or deciduous trees may support nesting birds in partially developed parks, cemeteries, and suburban woodlands. While they favor feeding in open forest canopies where cone seeds are abundant, they'll forage in habitats as diverse as deciduous forests and thickets, meadows, grasslands, weedy fields, roadsides, chaparral, and backyard gardens and lawns. They flock to backyard feeders offering small seeds. Mineral deposits can lure them to otherwise unattractive habitats like winter road beds that are salted to melt snow and ice. The nest is well-hidden on a horizontal branch of a tree, often a conifer.

Migration by this bird is highly variable, probably related to food supply. Large numbers may move south in some years; hardly any in others. This species is one of a few species that are considered "irruptive winter finches" because of the high variability of their movements based on the success of crops from year to year.

Feeding
These birds forage in trees, shrubs and weeds. They mainly eat seeds, plant parts and some insects. In winter, they often feed in mixed flocks including American goldfinches and redpolls. Small seeds, especially thistle, red alder, birch, and spruce seeds, make up the majority of the pine siskin's diet. In a part of their esophagus called the crop, the species can store up to 10% of their body weight in seeds overnight, providing extra food on cold days. They will alternately eat the young buds of willows, elms and maples, and the soft stems and leaves of weeds and even young garden vegetables. They glean the seeds of grass, dandelions, chickweed, sunflowers and ragweed. Bird feeders often attract pine siskins, where they may eat fragments of heavy-shelled seeds, such as black oil sunflowers, left behind by heavier-billed bird species. In summer, they will eat many insects, especially aphids, as well as a few spiders and grubs, which they then feed to the young as a protein-rich food that contributes to their growth. By the time of winter, even first-year siskins predominately eat seeds.

Pine siskins can survive in very cold temperatures. The metabolic rates of this species are typically 40% higher than a "normal" songbird of their size. When temperatures plunge as low as -70 C, they can accelerate that rate up to five times normal for several hours. They also put on half again as much winter fat as their common redpoll and American goldfinch relatives. They also can protect their young from cold as well. Nests are often heavily insulated with thick plant materials and females may literally never cease incubating their eggs and hatchlings, while being fed by their male mate.

Conservation status
Although considered Washington's most common finch, the pine siskin has suffered a significant annual decline in population since 1966, according to the Breeding Bird Survey. Due to the irruptive nature of this species, populations vary widely from year to year, and trends can be difficult to interpret. Parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds can have a significant impact on pine siskin productivity, and forest fragmentation has increased their contact with cowbirds. Maintaining large tracts of coniferous forest will help keep this bird common.

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

title: Pine siskin


text:
Talk:Jorge Luis Borges/Borges in the Modern and Postmodern Context

 * This was moved out of the main Jorge Luis Borges article. It is basically an essay, not encyclopedic. It may be worth mining for a section on Borges's philosophy. (I did not move it although I concur with the decision. Just clarifying what it's doing here. Original contributor of this material was effectively anonymous, so if you are out there, please feel free to chime in!) Jmabel 17:46, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I believe that what is useful here has been "mined", but I guess there is no loss in leaving it around. Jmabel 06:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nevertheless, much of Borges's writing suggests that his cultural locus was often Europe—more specifically a Europe whose theological authority had palpably dissolved under the pressure and success of science. Tensions inherent in the intellectual climate of that Europe, at that time, one may view as prefigured in the Enlightenment (or slightly before), and fully formed by the fin de siècle (or slightly after). By the time of Descartes (1596-1650), the Church still had difficulties with Copernicus's heliocentric cosmology, first propounded in his De Revolutionibus in 1543 (as a system this was restated by Kepler in the early seventeenth century), and Descartes it was who made possible the remorseless programme of science, as a thing co-existent with the will of God. His celebrated Cogito ergo sum— je pense, donc je suis, 'I think, therefore I am'—was central to his system of knowledge (see Honderich 1995: 138). It is that system which gave rise to Continental rationalism, in which the human purview is very much a matter of subject and object—the subjective mind making rational judgments about the objective world. Another name for this is Cartesian dualism, which has at its centre the maxim that knowledge of the world is acquired initially through observation of it, then through formulating correctly considered questions, then arriving at answers through rational thinking (see Magee 1988: 78-95). God's role in all this is, on the one hand, as creator of the objective world, and on the other as progenitor of the subjective, human soul, which is an imperfect image of Himself. It was precisely this dualism that allowed Isaac Newton (1642-1727) to devise his mechanistic universe, with its implacable laws of motion, and all neatly regulated by an absolute, Time, whilst simultaneously meditating on God. It has been noted by many other commentators that Newton's written output is devoted more to theology than it is to physics. According to Samuel Johnson, Newton began as 'an infidel' (or physicist), but came to be 'a very firm believer' (see Boswell 1909: 172).

It need hardly be stressed that a cognitive dualism has persisted in one form or another ever since, through Hegel's dialectic of the world (thesis, antithesis, synthesis), through Karl Marx's materialism (a class struggle), to those handy juxtapositions beloved of the structuralists (our world of text as a world of binarisms), even through to the presences and absences of post-structuralism. Somehow the case for God has never quite disappeared in all this, despite the fact that in the dulled embers still visible from the Romantic period, it was Nietzsche who officially called a moratorium on the Deity, asking the seemingly innocent question that if nobody actually believes in God, whom do we hold ultimately responsible for our actions?

Borges himself, if he doesn't overtly restate that kind of question, certainly knows how to dramatise it (metaphysically, of course). His 'Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' (Borges 1986: 32) is a revision of Berkeleian idealism. This, a seventeen-page story (long for him), opens as follows: 'I owe the discovery of Uqbar to the conjunction of a mirror and an encyclopedia'.

Berkeley, who was Bishop of Cloyne in 1734, denied the existence of matter. This was in a reply to Locke (1632-1704), whose conception of the universe was Newtonian and mechanistic, a place where material bodies conformed to a clockwork modus operandi—that is to say, a universe exhibiting solidity, figure, extension, motion or rest, and number. Among other things, these bodies, for Locke, operate on human sense-organs, and on the immaterial substance of human minds—all of which amounts to a conjunction in those minds of ideas. Therefore what we perceive as the world around us is not really the world around us, but only our ideas of it. To Berkeley this was repugnant, not least because, although as a system it allowed that God may have created the world, it did not require God's eternal supervision. (See Warnock 1991: 47.) It was this that led him to deny the existence of matter, maintaining that material objects exist only through being perceived, or to put it another way, through the act of perceiving them. That things don't cease to exist in our absence is Berkeley's proof for the omnipresence of God, who at all times perceives all things everywhere. (See Russell 1991: 623.) It was in this way that for Berkeley the world existed as a divine syntax, through which any well adjusted mortal may commute with his maker.

{Jmabel 22:30, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.} In Borges's revision of Berkeley, Uqbar is an undocumented region of Iraq or of Asia Minor, one of whose heresiarchs had declared the visible universe either an illusion or sophism, and that mirrors and procreation were abominable because they multiplied and disseminated that universe. As the story develops, it emerges that Uqbar is a region of Tlön, and that Tlön is an invented country, the work of a secret and benevolent society conceived in the early seventeenth century, and numbering Berkeley among its members. As the society's work began, it became clear that a single generation wasn't sufficient to articulate an entire country. Each master therefore agreed to elect a disciple who would carry on his work and also perpetuate this hereditary arrangement. However, there is no further trace of this society until, two centuries later, one of its disciples is an ascetic millionaire from Memphis, Tennessee, called Ezra Buckley, who scoffs at the modest scale of the sect's undertaking. He proposes instead the invention of a planet, and with certain provisos—that the project be kept secret, that an encyclopædia of the imaginary planet be written, and that the whole scheme will have no pact with the impostor Jesus Christ (and therefore none with Berkeley's God either). The date of Buckley's involvement is 1824. (See Borges 1986: 28, 39-40.) The timing of events in Borges's story is approximately a century after that, when Buckley's encyclopædia is beginning not to be a secret, and as a kind of mirror is beginning to disseminate its o wn universe.

{Jmabel 22:30, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.} What kind of encyclopædia that is, and therein what kind of planet we behold, is something we glean at various points in the story. For example it is not a construct of objects in space, with the consequence that one of the languages of Tlön—necessarily a conjectural language—is without nouns. As its central unit are impersonal verbs, inflected by monosyllabic extensions bearing an adverbial value. Borges offers us, for what would be our own the moon rose above the water a Tlönic equivalent: upward behind the onstreaming it mooned (Borges 1986: 33). In another language of Tlön, the prime unit, rather than the verb, is the monosyllabic adjective, which, in combinations of two or more, are noun-forming—therefore for moon read instead round airy-light on dark. We may say further, that because there are no nouns—or because nouns are composites of other parts of speech, and are subordinate to them—there can be no possibility of a priori deductive reasoning (and therefore no telos), and no possibility either of a posteriori inductive reasoning—which renders history void and ontology an alien concept. At this point we understand that we have entered into a Berkeleian idealism with one critical attenuation, i.e., Buckley's removal of the multiple and omnipresent percepts of a deity. It is tempting at this stage to recall Husserl—particularly when Tlön's one cultural discipline is psychology (ibid.)—and to start to think about a phenomenology which does not merely bracket off objective reality, but parce ls it separately into all its successive moments. This leads us to the interesting paradox that any citizen of Tlön drawing his present breath, is not the same citizen who drew his previous breath (I speak the chronologised jargon of an Earthling), and will become yet some other citizen in the act of drawing his next. This fantastic and replicating notion bears similarities to the position held by certain contemporary physicists, particularly Julian Barbour, who has argued that time as something measured by a clock isn't consistent with a quantum theory of gravity. He has proposed that we may have to consider each moment as an entity in itself, moreover as an entity which does not change (see Smolin 1997: 289). We, who are not of Tlön, believe in time because identifiable objects—persons, texts, the firmament—persist not as an act of mentation, but independently of us, through a succession of equally identifiable moments. Barbour on the other hand conceives of a universe giving rise to its entire stock of moments simultaneously, and what we call time is the approximation of those moments in a sequencing process which we ourselves perform (ibid.: 290)—we, of course, having invented, and having access to, nouns.

What perplexes physicists is the absence of a single overarching structure unifying the macro and micro scales—or Relativity and Quantum Theory. Nor does there seem to be much willingness to accept that these two aspects of our cosmos (though undoubtedly interactive—one might even say 'intertextual') might be irreconcilable. Neither Borges the philosophical writer nor Derrida the philosopher of writing approaches any such centred locus, for example Borges desisting the solemnity of a Russell (op. cit.: 626-633), who having set out the essentials of Berkleianism then proceeds to critique it (Borges merely removes it from its European loci then returns it to an indeterminate world as Buckleianism). Derrida is apt to view formal European schema in terms of the human sciences, and records a privileged place to one in particular—ethnology (Greek ἔθνος, nation). For Derrida, ethnology could not approach to the status of a science until European culture had been decentred, change bringing with it the dislocation of metaphysics as a concept of European Being. Here also was the point at which European culture ceased to be the culture of reference (point also at which the reflected image of Berkeley gazes back at us as Buckley). Derrida would like to consider further that this point also is not principally one of philosophical and scientific discourse, but is at once political, economic, technocratic. Ethnology, he says, or implies, arises in discour se, a primarily European discourse, one that for all its liberal pretensions continues to employ traditional concepts. As a consequence of this, the ethnologist (and not just any ethnologist) accepts into his discourse the premises of ethnocentrism (and the centrist race he has in mind is a European race) while at the same time denouncing them. (See Derrida 1993: 282.) It is this dualism, or dynamic binarism, which in my opinion is the sine qua non of Borges's art, in its character of non-European Europeanness.

{Jmabel 06:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Book of Sand; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.} This rears itself everywhere in Borges, and perhaps never more pointedly than in his short fiction 'The Book of Sand'. That, I will argue, is the Book of all books, and is a monster. Once revealed as such, its owner surreptitiously transports it to the Argentine National Library, and 'slipping past a member of the staff and trying not to notice at what height or distance from the door ... [loses] the Book of Sand on one of the basement's musty shelves'—i.e., a book hidden by many others (Borges 1979: 91). Here already I shall have to cast the fictive Borges into the same blur as his biographical senior, writing as narrator. In a dream of himself, in a dreamed apartment in a dream of Buenos Aires, 'volumes', or books that the wraith called Borges has frequently handled, include encyclopædias, maps, sacred tomes, the world's fantasies concerning itself. Someone very like him, whose domicile is Belgrano St, receives a caller who initially introduces himself as someone selling Bibles. But Bibles aren't the requirement, and so the salesman, who is a Presbyterian from the Orkneys, instead produces an octavo volume, bound in cloth, on whose spine are the words 'Holy Writ', and 'Bombay'. On opening the book, the pages appear in double columns, and ordered in versicles, as is so in a Bible. The bookseller advises a close look at the page, since it will never be found, or seen, again, and goes on to say that he acquired the book in exchange for a handful of rupees and a Bible, from an owner who did not know how to read. It is impossible to find its first and last page, and is called The Book of Sand because it has no beginning or end—its very pages are terms in an infinite series. As to the bookseller's conscience, it is clear: he feels sure of not having cheated the native in exchanging the Word of God for this, a diabolic trinket. Hume is mentioned, as has been George Herbert ('Thy rope of sands', epigraph to the whole destructive rig-up), and the book is sold to the citizen of Belgrano St. (See Borges 1979: 87-90.)

{Jmabel 06:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Book of Sand; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.} George Herbert (1593-1633), who balanced a secular career with a life of theological contemplation, was ordained deacon c.1624, and was installed as a canon of Lincoln cathedral and prebendary of Leighton Bromswold, near the Anglican T. S. Eliot's Little Gidding, in 1626 (see Drabble 1989: 454). Herbert the poet is at all times in pursuit of what Derrida has called a 'transcendental signifier', God's summarising logos, the last syllable of recorded time, as the divine extension of the Book of Genesis (In the beginning, God said ...), suspiration that renders as revealed and knowable everything that has been uttered and written in between—life and the world as a sacred inscription:

{Jmabel 06:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Book of Sand; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.}
 * Thy rope of sands, /
 * Which petty thoughts have made, and made to thee /
 * Good cable, to enforce and draw, /
 * And be thy law, /
 * While thou didst wink and would not see.
 * (Wain 1996: 242.)

{Jmabel 06:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Book of Sand; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.} Above all, Herbert wants us to see God's revealed truth—which the Presbyterian bookseller believes is written in a book, in the Book, to the point that his evangelism extends to the Hindu caste system in Bombay, where he has found what to him must be the opposite of incontestable writ, what with its textual flickers, its Derridean presences and absence. Note that Presbyterianism occupies an intermediate position between episcopacy (the Church of England is Episcopal) and congregationalism, whose form of worship has been marked by extreme simplicity—this explains its appeal to Cromwell and his Puritan followers (see Yust 1951: vol. 18, 440-444). One imagines that to the average Presbyterian, God's truth is a simple truth. By contrast one can't ever imagine this being the case for Hume (1711-76), himself a son of Presbyterianism, whose 'persistence in irreligion shook the conviction of Boswell, and provoked some particularly unpleasant comments from Dr. Johnson' (Honderich 1995: 378): 'Hume owned he had never read the New Testament with attention. Here then was a man who had been at no pains to enquire into the truth of religion, and had continually turned his mind the other way. It was not to be expected that the prospect of death would alter his way of thinking, unless God should send an angel to set him right' (Boswell 1909: 409). According to Hume, '... evidence ... for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion [w hose texts are founded on the testimony of the apostles], it was no greater; and it is evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples; nor can any one rest such confidence in their testimony, as in the immediate object of their senses' (Hume 1982: 109).

{Jmabel 06:47, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC): I have canibalized the following paragraph for Book of Sand; no doubt it will be mercilessly edited there.} It can be by no means accidental that Borges as author (as author of 'The Book of Sand') has passed into the simplified hands of an evangelical Presbyterian an 'immediate object', the sense of which undermines plain faith in a Christian eschatology. Derrida has pointed out that a structure (we'd describe Christianity more as a superstructure) always presumes a centre, and himself finds only suspect evidence for such a co-ordinate: what we call a 'center ... is the point at which the substitution of contents, elements, or terms ... is forbidden ... Thus it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which while governing the structure, escapes structurality' (Derrida 1993: 279)—meaning that, paradoxically, the centre is and isn't the centre. Any one page of an infinite book, for that moment while we contemplate it, is the central term of an infinite series, yet is merely engulfed by that infiniteness during those other moments while we don't. I go further and say that this counter-Book posited by Borges is in fact an interpretation of the Book, to whom he has called Herbert, Hume and a Presbyterian Bible-vendor as first witness. The Book of Sand is the Book of the basis of Western Christianity, decentred.

So why should the cauldron of a new and appropriated country—Argentina—whose influx was largely European, cast back on to us a quasi-European, such as I am suggesting Borges was? As Homi Bhabha puts it, in the complex wording of an essay I have translated from English to English, called 'Signs Taken for Wonders',

The Bible has to be considered as the first Book of Imperialist propaganda, and being so has paved the way for subsequent European books springing up all over the colonised world, in a similar miraculous aura. The Word as the Word of God, is the Word transmitted by European man, and is a Word that encapsulates a vision of half-made societies everywhere. It therefore becomes not only the Word of God, but of truth, and of art, and as it follows, the basis for founding not only a 'true' and 'artistic' beginning, but a practice of history and narrative. But. Implanting the Word in the wilds is also a process of displacement, and the immediate vision of the Word is therefore freed from the discourse that accompanied or even encumbered it (to echo Derrida). Displacement is therefore what the Word now communicates [and is especially what the Word in the Borges œuvre communicates]. The Word is a hybrid, and of course any hybrid is neither certainly the One nor certainly the Other. Difference and Otherness at that point become a pressure and a presence on the boundary of Authority [an Authority which in Argentina failed to make of Martín Fierro the unequivocal Argentine tradition. Similarly Borges has taken the European Book and turned it into a rope of sand]. Such pressure and presence do not amount to overt opposition (in a political sense), but to a form of resistance. What is resisted is the content of another culture, while at the same time that other culture reinvents its signs and its various discourses to bolster its role as a colonial power. What this results in is an ambivalence towards the rules and dominating discourses of that colonising power [and Borges, being of that power, could not enjoy a relation to European culture in any straightforward way—it was inevitable that the relation was shifted]. (See Bhabha 1995: 29-32.)

One further complication in the case of Argentina is that the colonising power also quickly became the 'native' population, since the Indian presence was almost entirely expunged. The argument though I think is still relevant, if in this instance its relevance is to a transplanted European culture—a culture in opposition to itself.


text:
Gethsemani

Gethsemani may refer to:
 * Gethsemane, a garden in Jerusalem believed to be the place where Jesus and his disciples prayed the night before the crucifixion
 * Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani, Bardstown, Kentucky, U.S.
 * Getsemaní, a district in the old town of Cartagena, Colombia; see Puerta del Reloj, Cartagena
 * Gethsémani, a former name of La Romaine, Quebec, Canada

title: Gethsemani


text:
1922 in science

The year 1922 in science and technology involved some significant events, listed below.

Archaeology

 * November 4 – British archaeologist Howard Carter and his men find the entrance to King Tutankhamen's tomb in the Valley of the Kings of Egypt.

Biology

 * August – The California grizzly bear is hunted to extinction.
 * Last known wild Barbary lion (P. l. leo) shot in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco.
 * The Amur tiger becomes extinct in South Korea.
 * H. J. Muller sets out the basic properties of genetic heredity.

Chemistry

 * June 20 – Degesch applies to patent the cyanide-based insecticide Zyklon B (credited to Walter Heerdt) in Germany.
 * Vitamin E is discovered by Herbert McLean Evans and Katharine Scott Bishop at the University of California, Berkeley and Vitamin D by Elmer McCollum and others.
 * Czech chemist Jaroslav Heyrovský invents polarographic methods of chemical analysis.
 * German chemist Hermann Staudinger proposes what he will come to call macromolecules.

Ethnology

 * Bronisław Malinowski's influential ethnological text Argonauts of the Western Pacific is published.

Mathematics

 * First publication of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in an English translation.
 * Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg provides a proof of the "Lindeberg condition" of the central limit theorem.
 * Ernst Steinitz proves Steinitz's theorem in polyhedral combinatorics.

Medicine

 * January 11 – First successful insulin treatment of diabetes, by Frederick Banting in Toronto, using a pure preparation intravenously injected; on the same date Nicolae Paulescu makes an apparently successful rectal administration of an insulin preparation.

Meteorology

 * English mathematical physicist Lewis Fry Richardson proposes a scheme for weather forecasting by solution of differential equations, the method used in modern times, in his work Weather Prediction by Numerical Process.

Paleontology

 * First of four successive American Museum of Natural History expeditions to Mongolia under Roy Chapman Andrews which will discover fossils of Indricotherium (a gigantic hornless rhinoceros then named "Baluchitherium"), Protoceratops, a nest of Protoceratops eggs (found in 1995 to be from Oviraptor), Pinacosaurus, Saurornithoides, Oviraptor and Velociraptor, none of which were known before.

Physics

 * Arthur Compton studies X-ray photon scattering by electrons.
 * Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach show "space quantization".
 * Hilding Faxén introduces Faxén's law for the velocity of a sphere in fluid dynamics.
 * Albert Einstein's The Meaning of Relativity: Four Lectures Delivered at Princeton University, May 1921 is published by Princeton University Press.

Technology

 * February 14 – The world's first regular wireless broadcasts for entertainment, made by Peter Eckersley, begin transmission on radio station 2MT from a hut at the Marconi Company laboratories at Writtle near Chelmsford in England. This is followed in the United Kingdom on May 11 by station 2LO from Marconi House in London, which from November 22 becomes the British Broadcasting Company (BBC).
 * Lancia Lambda is the first automobile to use monocoque construction.
 * Approximate date – Madeleine Vionnet introduces the bias cut dress in Paris.

Awards

 * Nobel Prize
 * Physics – Niels Bohr
 * Chemistry – Francis William Aston
 * Physiology or Medicine – Archibald Vivian Hill and Otto Fritz Meyerhof

Births

 * January 9 – Har Gobind Khorana (died 2011), Indian-born biochemist and Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine laureate (shared with Ralph F. Hirschmann).
 * February 12 – William Rashkind (died 1986), American cardiologist.
 * March 4 – Geoff Tootill (died 2017), English computer scientist.
 * March 7 – Olga Ladyzhenskaya (died 2004), Russian mathematician.
 * April 22 – Wolf V. Vishniac (died 1973), American microbiologist.
 * May 4 – Eugenie Clark (died 2015), American ichthyologist.
 * May 6 – Ralph F. Hirschmann (died 2009), German American biochemist, leader of a team responsible for the first organic synthesis of an enzyme, a ribonuclease; Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine laureate (shared with Har Gobind Khorana).
 * June 19 – Aage Bohr (died 2009), Danish nuclear physicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate.
 * June 22 – Ewen Whitaker (died 2016), English-born lunar astronomer.
 * June 26 – Cuchlaine King (died 2019), British geomorphologist.
 * June 29 – San Baw (died 1984), Burmese orthopaedic surgeon.
 * July 9 – Kathleen Booth (died 2022), English-born computer scientist.
 * July 15 – Leon M. Lederman (died 2018), American experimental physicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate.
 * July 18 – Thomas Kuhn (died 1996), American philosopher of science.
 * July 25 – John B. Goodenough (died 2023), German-born American solid-state physicist and Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureate.
 * August 24 – Donald Henry Colless (died 2012), Australian entomologist.
 * September 2 – Arthur Ashkin (died 2020), American physicist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate.
 * September 5 – Denys Wilkinson (died 2016), English nuclear physicist.
 * November 8 – Christiaan Barnard (died 2001), South African cardiac surgeon.
 * November 15 – David Sidney Feingold (died 2019), American biochemist and academic.
 * November 26 – John D. Hoffman (died 2004), American nuclear chemist.

Deaths

 * January 5 – Ernest Shackleton (born 1874), Anglo-Irish explorer (of heart attack at South Georgia Island).
 * January 15 – Edward Hopkinson (born 1859), English electrical engineer.
 * January 22 – Camille Jordan (born 1838), French mathematician.
 * April 1 – Hermann Rorschach (born 1884), Swiss psychiatrist.
 * April 9 – Sir Patrick Manson (born 1844), Scottish-born "father of tropical medicine".
 * May 26 – Ernest Solvay (born 1838), Belgian chemist.
 * June 18 – Jacobus Kapteyn (born 1851), Dutch astronomer.
 * August 2 – Alexander Graham Bell (born 1847), Scottish American inventor (in Nova Scotia).
 * August 18 – W. H. Hudson (born 1841), Anglo-Argentine naturalist.
 * August 29 – Sophie Bryant (born 1850), Anglo-Irish mathematician and educationalist (in hiking accident in the Alps).
 * September 7 – William Stewart Halsted (born 1852), American surgeon.
 * October 25 – Oscar Hertwig (born 1849), German zoologist.

title: 1922 in science


text:
Weierstrass preparation theorem

In mathematics, the Weierstrass preparation theorem is a tool for dealing with analytic functions of several complex variables, at a given point P. It states that such a function is, up to multiplication by a function not zero at P, a polynomial in one fixed variable z, which is monic, and whose coefficients of lower degree terms are analytic functions in the remaining variables and zero at P.

There are also a number of variants of the theorem, that extend the idea of factorization in some ring R as u·w, where u is a unit and w is some sort of distinguished Weierstrass polynomial. Carl Siegel has disputed the attribution of the theorem to Weierstrass, saying that it occurred under the current name in some of late nineteenth century Traités d'analyse without justification.

Complex analytic functions
For one variable, the local form of an analytic function f(z) near 0 is zkh(z) where h(0) is not 0, and k is the order of the zero of f at 0. This is the result that the preparation theorem generalises. We pick out one variable z, which we may assume is first, and write our complex variables as (z, z2, ..., zn). A Weierstrass polynomial W(z) is

 * zk + gk−1zk−1 + ... + g0

where gi(z2, ..., zn) is analytic and gi(0, ..., 0) = 0.

Then the theorem states that for analytic functions f, if

 * f(0, ...,0) = 0,

and

 * f(z, z2, ..., zn)

as a power series has some term only involving z, we can write (locally near (0, ..., 0))

 * f(z, z2, ..., zn) = W(z)h(z, z2, ..., zn)

with h analytic and h(0, ..., 0) not 0, and W a Weierstrass polynomial.

This has the immediate consequence that the set of zeros of f, near (0, ..., 0), can be found by fixing any small values of z2, ..., zn and then solving the equation W(z)=0. The corresponding values of z form a number of continuously-varying branches, in number equal to the degree of W in z. In particular f cannot have an isolated zero.

Division theorem
A related result is the Weierstrass division theorem, which states that if f and g are analytic functions, and g is a Weierstrass polynomial of degree N, then there exists a unique pair h and j such that f = gh + j, where j is a polynomial of degree less than N. In fact, many authors prove the Weierstrass preparation as a corollary of the division theorem. It is also possible to prove the division theorem from the preparation theorem so that the two theorems are actually equivalent.

Applications
The Weierstrass preparation theorem can be used to show that the ring of germs of analytic functions in n variables is a Noetherian ring, which is also referred to as the Rückert basis theorem.

Smooth functions
There is a deeper preparation theorem for smooth functions, due to Bernard Malgrange, called the Malgrange preparation theorem. It also has an associated division theorem, named after John Mather.

Formal power series in complete local rings
There is an analogous result, also referred to as the Weierstrass preparation theorem, for the ring of formal power series over complete local rings A: for any power series $$f = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n t^n \in At$$ such that not all $$a_n$$ are in the maximal ideal $$\mathfrak m$$ of A, there is a unique unit u in $$At$$ and a polynomial F of the form $$F=t^s + b_{s-1} t^{s-1} + \dots + b_0$$ with $$b_i \in \mathfrak m$$ (a so-called distinguished polynomial) such that
 * $$f = uF.$$

Since $$At$$ is again a complete local ring, the result can be iterated and therefore gives similar factorization results for formal power series in several variables.

For example, this applies to the ring of integers in a p-adic field. In this case the theorem says that a power series f(z) can always be uniquely factored as πn·u(z)·p(z), where u(z) is a unit in the ring of power series, p(z) is a distinguished polynomial (monic, with the coefficients of the non-leading terms each in the maximal ideal), and π is a fixed uniformizer.

An application of the Weierstrass preparation and division theorem for the ring $$\mathbf Z_pt$$ (also called Iwasawa algebra) occurs in Iwasawa theory in the description of finitely generated modules over this ring.

There exists a non-commutative version of Weierstrass division and preparation, with A being a not necessarily commutative ring, and with formal skew power series in place of formal power series.

Tate algebras
There is also a Weierstrass preparation theorem for Tate algebras
 * $$T_n(k) = \left \{ \sum_{\nu_1, \dots, \nu_n \ge 0} a_{\nu_1, \dots, \nu_n} X_1^{\nu_1} \cdots X_n^{\nu_n}, |a_{\nu_1, \dots, \nu_n}| \to 0 \text{ for } \nu_1 + \dots +\nu_n \to \infty \right \}$$

over a complete non-archimedean field k. These algebras are the basic building blocks of rigid geometry. One application of this form of the Weierstrass preparation theorem is the fact that the rings $$T_n(k)$$ are Noetherian.

title: Weierstrass preparation theorem


text:
Frank Mannion

Frank Mannion is an Irish film producer, based in London.

Since 2002, he has run the film production company, Swipe Films.

He has produced or executive produced:

 * Mad Cows starring Joanna Lumley, Anna Friel, Mohamed Al Fayed, Jodie Kidd & Sophie Dahl
 * Divorcing Jack starring David Thewlis, Rachel Griffiths & Jason Isaacs
 * Grand Theft Parsons starring Johnny Knoxville & Christina Applegate
 * In Prison My Whole Life with Colin Firth, Mumia Abu Jamal, Mos Def, Noam Chomsky, Snoop Dogg & Steve Earle (international sales agent)
 * Reverb (film) starring Leo Gregory and Eva Birthistle
 * Flourish (film) starring Jennifer Morrison and Leighton Meester
 * Jackboots on Whitehall starring Ewan McGregor, Richard E. Grant, Rosamund Pike & Tom Wilkinson

He has an LL.B. from Trinity College Dublin and an LL.M. from Trinity Hall Cambridge.

title: Frank Mannion


text:
Pigeon River (Minnesota–Ontario)

The Pigeon River forms part of the Canada–United States border between the state of Minnesota and the province of Ontario, west of Lake Superior. In pre-industrial times, the river was a waterway of great importance for transportation and the fur trade.

Geography
The Pigeon River flows in an easterly direction out of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness for 31.2 mi until it drains into Lake Superior. The Pigeon is one of the larger rivers on Superior's North Shore.

Headwaters
The Pigeon River originates from a chain of lakes along the US-Canada border, the highest of which, and furthest west, is Mountain Lake. Among the Pigeon's tributaries is the Arrow River of Ontario, which rises in South Lake, west of and at a lower elevation than Mountain Lake. South Lake is separated only by a narrow isthmus from North Lake in the Rainy River watershed. This isthmus is a part of the Northern (or Laurentian) Continental divide, and is crossed by the Height of Land Portage. The fur-trading Voyageurs and coureurs des bois crossed this divide and travelled north and west downstream on the Rainy River and Winnipeg River to Lake Winnipeg, and thence to fur-producing areas of the Canadian northwest.

Lower course
Below South Fowl Lake, the Pigeon River alternates between navigable waters and cascades or waterfalls. As the river nears Lake Superior, the gradient increases, culminating in a spectacular gorge including two notable waterfalls: High Falls, at 120 ft the highest waterfall in Minnesota, and Middle Falls. This gorge is included within both Grand Portage State Park in Cook County, Minnesota, and Pigeon River Provincial Park (9.49 km2) across the border in Thunder Bay District, Ontario. Its lower course also forms the northern boundary of the Grand Portage Indian Reservation.

A 9 mi portage, known as Grand Portage and used for hundreds of years by canoe travelers, bypasses these lower waterfalls and reaches Lake Superior a few miles from the mouth of the river. This historic area is protected as a part of the Grand Portage National Monument.

History
Up to the 19th century, the river was a primary water route for fur traders, and even earlier, for Native Americans, leading to the Lake of the Woods and thence to western Canada and Hudson Bay. The Montreal-based North West Company had a post at the community of Grand Portage on the shore of Lake Superior until 1801 when difficulties with the U.S. government following the adoption of the Jay Treaty obliged it to relocate to the Kaministiquia River in British territory.

The region was extensively logged for white and red pine in the early part of the 20th century. An "outlaw" bridge across the river was built by residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario, and opened on August 18, 1917, to permit access to Minnesota. The Canadian road leading to the customs and immigration facilities at the bridge was initially known as the "Scott Highway" after lumberman William Scott, and was designated as King's Highway 61 in 1937. Later the Pigeon River Bridge was built downstream and the "outlaw bridge" was removed.

The river's English name is a translation of the 18th century French name Rivière aux Tourtres or Tourtes derived after the passenger pigeon which was once prolific in this region.

title: Pigeon River (Minnesota–Ontario)


text:
Talk:Science education

Untitled
Until there is no article here about pedagogy I've linked to eo fr pl Pedagogy. To be fixed later. AL. I remove the links. I confused Science education and Education Science. Arno Lagrange 11:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The distinction may be more prominent in the US than other countries, yet is still pretty subtle. Science Education refers to the study of how to teach science (pedagogy, inclusive practices, etc). Education in science I think would refer to actually doing the teaching. If you know the point of view of other countries, it is needed in this article. And you're right, an article on pedagogy is needed. --zandperl 17:05, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) "it is by chance more rigorous" <- Can someone explain what this phrase means?
 * 2) "On the one hand, the elitism of professional scientists and academia has prompted numbers of education specialists to take interest in science education and making it more accessible to individuals." <- Does this mean something like, "Some science education specialists work towards the goal of making science education and career paths towards science professions equally accessible to all demographic groups" ?
 * 3) "Opposing the science educators, traditional scientists feel it is important to not dilute respectable science." <- I do not understand why "making science more accessible" should imply a "dilution of respectable science." There are many professional scientists who participate in enrichment and support programs that attract under-represented groups to science. The only organized efforts I know of by scientists to exclude any group from science are watchdog efforts designed to challenge con artists from falsely labeling their non-scientific activities as science. Such efforts to prevent the "dilution of respectable science" only oppose those efforts of "educators" who have special agendas for forcing non-science like "creation science" into the science curriculum.
 * 4) "Allowing those less qualified to perform science will only result in the propagation of errors and less accurate science." <- I'm not sure what this sentence is telling us. Most professions define and work to maintain standards. However, there is a well-recognized and long tradition of "amateur science" which has produced some high-quality science. Nobody can be prevented from doing science. It makes sense to allow working scientists to require certain professional qualifications of those who they hire to do science.
 * 5) "Both groups wish to train future scientists, they differ on how to do so, and whom is qualified." <- Can you provide some examples of these differences? JWSchmidt 13:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I've numbered your points above for easier reference.
 * I think that means that despite the lack of regulation, American colleges are generally considered to be of higher quality than those in other countries.
 * yep you're right, specifically underrepresented groups such as women, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities. see The Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy for some of their concerns.
 * That section isn't referring to pseudoscience, but what potential scientists must go through to become accepted scientists. For example going to college is required as an early step.  Going to college requires scoring well on the SAT.  When's the last time a student in an inner city high school scored well on the SAT?  This isn't intentional by the scientists, it's an unfortunate side effect, and can easily be dismissed as just trying to keep out the stupid people.  While most science organizations (such as the National Science Foundation and NASA) today do engage in outreach activities to try and attract people to science, if you examine their history these were usually implemented only after science educators started examining trends in student recruitment and retention.
 * see above note
 * see above note
 * Are these adequate explanations, and do you agree? If so, how can we put it in the article?  I think I did much of the work on the parts you questioned, so I'm sure additional input is sorely needed.  :)

 * --zandperl 22:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The original intent seems to me to be a comparison between pre-college science teaching and what happens in college.
 * Elitism: the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals. I would like to see a specific example of how "the elitism of professional scientists and academia" is causally related to the problem of under-represented groups in science. For example, is there evidence to suggest that the percentage of female biologists is a higher than the percentage of female computer scientists because computer scientists are more elitist than biologists? Surely the problem is not that there are standards for the science track in education. The problem is that not all demographic groups equally meet the standards.
 * I'm still confused. Is there evidence that any scientists oppose addressing the problem of under-represented groups in science? Are there really science educators who want to "dilute respectable science" in the interest of equal representation of all demographic groups in science?
 * Are science educators in favor of requiring working scientists to hire unqualified personnel just so that there are no under-represented groups in science?
 * Can you provide an example of how science educators would train future scientists in a different way than how scientists currently do it? JWSchmidt 23:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

References?
There are a number of links on this page, but few true references. --zandperl 20:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Negative views & lack of references
This article would appear to be written primarily from a negative viewpoint. It seems to violate the NPOV guidelines, especially seeing that references aren't given for the statements that are made.

I'll come back in a couple days and clean up the article unless references have been cited or arguments are made on the talk page.

 * Examples
 * "In many U.S. states, K-12 educators must adhere to rigid standards or frameworks of what content is to be taught to which age groups." -- True...but a reference should be cited.

 * "Unfortunately, this often means teachers rush to "cover" the material, without truly "teaching" it." --Seems like a generalization. Definitely needs a citation. I'm sure this isn't the case all the time.

 * "In addition, the process of science is often overlooked, such as the scientific method, and critical thinking, producing students who can pass multiple choice tests (such as the New York Regents exams and the Massachusetts MCAS), but cannot solve complex problems." --Another generalization. Again, I'm sure that this isn't true as much as this statement seems to be implying it is.

 * "Although at the college level American science education tends to be less regulated, it is actually more rigorous" --Citation needed

 * "with teachers and professors fitting more content into the same time period." --Citation needed. Not to mention this seems to contradict the arguments in the second sentence.

 * "In 1996, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. National Academies produced the National Science Education Standards which is available online for free in multiple forms. Its focus on inquiry-based, rather than memorization-based, science education was somewhat controversial at the time, but has been shown to be more effective as a model for teaching science, if less amenable to multiple-choice tests." --Citation needed

 * "One the most approachable and important documents about science education is the volume "How People Think" by John D. Bransford, et al. In this compact and highly digested volume, the fruit of massive research into student thinking is presented as having three key findings:**"--Citation needed (a volume unknown to the international science education community is unwarrantedly applauded here)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Micz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there is more to this topic than the issues brought on by Curriculum Frameworks.

Benwildeboer 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Commercial supply company links
I don't feel that the Science education article is an appropriate place to put links for commercial companies that provide science equipment. These sites have very little to do with the content of the article. Not to mention there are hundreds of science equipment suppliers. How would you pick which ones to include and which not to? I feel that this article should focus not on equipment, but on pedagogy & curriculum. Benwildeboer 11:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Science Education standards"
As this section is totally US-centric and may not reflect the rest of the world, I've changed this heading to "United States" in order to make it more commensurate with the "United Kingdom" heading below. Liverpool Scouse 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the Physical Science Study Committee
In the section about the United States I've added a link to the article on the PSSC and claim that this was the first of the reform efforts of the era. This could be wrong. Reform of mathematics might have preceeded establishment of the PSSC. Will someone please check and correct if necessary. Thanks. PeterEasthope (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

SciAm resource
Speaking Out on the "Quiet Crisis" Strengthening science education is the key to securing our energy future, says Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's president. Scientific American by Brendan Borrell December 5, 2011  (page 94 to 99 in print)

See Shirley Ann Jackson

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to the Italian
The link in the column on the left is to an Italian article about the "Science of Education", in the sense of teaching method in general, roughly corresponding to what would be taught in English-speaking countriea in a Faculty of Education, so there is no point in linking to it. I couldn't find a corresponding Italian article specifically about science teaching.Campolongo (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Seems like it should be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted content
I have removed copyrighted content taken from here. I have left the paragraph that was added along with the lists by the same user as it doesn't appear to a blatant copy/paste like the list was, but there may be some close paraphrasing that needs changed/removed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

formal vs. informal education
what should this article scope be in this regard? Fgnievinski (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

White House Astronomy Night
I've created a new article on White House Astronomy Night.

Suggestions for additional WP:RS sources would be appreciated, at Talk:White House Astronomy Night.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Science education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614211608/http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/rc0601.pdf to http://www.publicagenda.org/research/pdfs/rc0601.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 特色3 (Small).JPG

Merge proposal
Support the May proposal to merge Scientific teaching on the grounds of overlap and because it's a stub, whose scope is already better covered here. Klbrain (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support scientific teaching seems just a neologism for science education. fgnievinski (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating Science
— Assignment last updated by Maeflowerbailey16 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Warum ist die Erde flach?
Erklärt mal 2A02:3030:8:A0CA:6090:1EC4:4B49:21B9 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Science education


text:
Carnie Wilson

Carnie Wilson (born April 29, 1968) is an American singer, songwriter, and television personality. She is the daughter of Brian Wilson and in 1989 co-founded the pop music trio Wilson Phillips with her younger sister Wendy. From 1995 onwards, she has also been a host or guest star on a variety of television shows.

Early life and musical career
Carnie Wilson was born in Los Angeles on April 29, 1968, the daughter of Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys and of his first wife, former singer Marilyn Rovell of The Honeys. Her mother is of Jewish heritage, while her father is of Dutch, Scottish, English, German, Irish, and Swedish ancestry.

She co-founded Wilson Phillips with her younger sister Wendy and childhood friend Chynna Phillips in 1989. They released two albums, Wilson Phillips and Shadows and Light, which between them sold twelve million copies. The group also charted three No. 1 singles and six top 20 hits in the United States before disbanding in 1993.

Carnie & Wendy Wilson continued to record together, releasing the Christmas album Hey Santa! in 1993. They joined with their father for the 1997 album The Wilsons. Carnie also sang "Our Time Has Come" with James Ingram for the 1997 animated film Cats Don't Dance.

In 2003, Carnie attempted to launch a solo music career with the album For the First Time. The record featured a remake of the Olivia DiNucci-penned Samantha Mumba ballad "Don't Need You To (Tell Me I'm Pretty)", retitled "I Don't Need You To", as its first single. However, the single failed to gain interest and the album was ultimately shelved when Carnie regrouped with Wendy and Chynna as Wilson Phillips in 2004.

Reunited, the band released a third album, named California, which appeared on Sony Music's record label. The album featured cover songs, primarily from the 1960s and 1970s, and specifically highlighted the glory days of their parents' California-based musical groups: The Mamas & the Papas and the Beach Boys.

In 2006, Carnie released an album of lullabies, A Mother's Gift: Lullabies from the Heart, created shortly after the birth of her daughter, Lola. She released her second solo effort in October 2007, a Christmas album entitled Christmas with Carnie, featuring a song written by her husband, "Warm Lovin' Christmastime".

Television career

From 1995 to 1996, Carnie hosted her own short-lived syndicated television talk show, Carnie! The series was launched during the mid-1990s wave of popularity in "tabloid" talk shows, which followed the sudden successes of Ricki Lake and Jerry Springer. Former  Cosmopolitan magazine's Bachelor-of-the-Month Chris Greeley was a guest on the television pilot. Wilson found the experience a disappointment and a source of professional and personal frustration.

She later guest-starred on episodes of That 70s Show in 2001 and Sabrina the Teenage Witch, before joining the fourth season of VH1's Celebrity Fit Club in 2006.

Wilson has also been a correspondent on Entertainment Tonight and in 2006 hosted a special on E! titled 101 Celebrity Slimdowns. She became a cast member of the CMT series Gone Country in January 2008. In April 2008, she was a cast member of the VH1 series Celebracadabra. In July 2008, she starred in a show called Outsider's Inn.

She hosted GSN's new edition of The Newlywed Game, which premiered April 6, 2009, until late 2010, when she was replaced by Sherri Shepherd.

In addition, a reality show starring Wilson, Carnie Wilson: Unstapled, began airing on the Game Show Network on January 14, 2010. In August 2011, Wilson became a judge on the ABC show Karaoke Battle USA.

On January 2, 2012, she appeared on ABC's Celebrity Wife Swap, trading places with actress Tracey Gold for a week.

In the spring of 2012, Carnie along with her sister Wendy and childhood friend Chynna Phillips starred in their own reality show on the TV Guide Network about the rebirth of their band, Wilson Phillips. The show, called Wilson Phillips: Still Holding On, logged the journey of the trio getting back together to reform Wilson Phillips on the road, in the studio, and at home as working mothers. A pilot episode aired in November 2011. Seven additional episodes aired in April and May 2012.

Wilson starred in the Chopped "All Stars: Celebrities" episode and got to second place.

In 2013, Carnie became a member of "Team Rachael" on the second season of the Food Network's Rachael vs. Guy: Celebrity Cook-Off. She came in second to Dean McDermott and won $10,000 for her charity, an autism research foundation.

She also frequently fills in as a guest host on CBS's The Talk.

In 2015, she played herself as an auto insurance claimant on a Progressive Insurance TV commercial. On January 28, 2016, it was announced that she is going to be a contestant on The New Celebrity Apprentice (also known as The Apprentice 15 and Celebrity Apprentice 8). On January 2, 2017, Wilson was the second contestant fired, finishing in fifteenth place, earning no money for her charity, The Weight Loss Surgery Foundation of America.

In July 2016, Wilson Phillips reunited and performed on ABC's Greatest Hits.

In February 2017, Wilson made a guest appearance on the reality show The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

Marriage & family
Wilson married musician and producer Robert Bonfiglio in 2000. They have daughters born in 2005 and 2009.

Her uncles were Dennis Wilson and Carl Wilson. She is a cousin to Beach Boys co-founder Mike Love and his brother, former NBA player Stan Love, as well as Stan's son, Miami Heat player Kevin Love.

Bell's palsy diagnosis
On March 18, 2013, Wilson disclosed, through Twitter, that she had been diagnosed with Bell's palsy.

Love Bites by Carnie
On August 26, 2017, Carnie and her business partner, childhood friend Tiffany Miller, opened Love Bites by Carnie, a commercial production bakery in Sherwood, Oregon, a suburb of Portland. Love Bites by Carnie makes gourmet, bite-sized cookies.

Discography
with Wilson Phillips
 * Wilson Phillips (1990)
 * Shadows and Light (1992)
 * California (2004)
 * Christmas in Harmony (2010)
 * Dedicated (2012)

as Carnie and Wendy Wilson/the Wilsons
 * Hey Santa! (1993)
 * The Wilsons (with select appearances by Brian Wilson) (1997)

Solo
 * For the First Time (2003)
 * A Mother's Gift: Lullabies from the Heart (2006)
 * Christmas with Carnie (2007)

title: Carnie Wilson