Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology

Population genetics organization

just wanted to say hi to you guys/gals. i am marcos antezana, a professional empirical and theoretical evolutionary biologist/geneticist who furthermore really cares about the verbal structure of evolutionary and biological discourse. (i already gave a severe polishing to the muller's ratchet and to the beginning of the natural selection entries). english is my fifth language though, so beware. i would like to help this project in bringing the best of evolutionary thinking and knowledge to the world for free and in the clearest english possible. i have also asked several colleagues to join this effort and to improve articles in their fields of expertise. but please do not be intimidated and keep working on improving things and let's all keep an eye on each other (but with an open mind) since nobody is perfect. -- best to you all -- marcos

Hi Duncan, thanks for your recent work on various population genetics topics. I've been meaning to give attention to them myself. I think the footer is good idea, but it's difficult to figure out exactly how to format it. I was thinking that we should develop a companion List of evolutionary biology topics to complement List of biochemistry topics and List of biology topics from which we could assemble a coherent list. This list would include topics from population genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics/systematics and evolutionary developmental biology. It might eventually useful to have a footer box for each sub-field of evolutionary biology, but a start with population genetics is probably good, since it's probably (given it's mathematical orientation) the most easily structured subfield of evolutionary biology. What say you? Cheers --Lexor|Talk 20:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with population genetics is that it gets quite complicated and heavily statisticised (is that a word?). I haven't got time right now but I would suggest that having two levels would be a good idea. The problem is we're missing several important topics, and probably need a project to identify them. I've listed some population genetics under wikiproject maths.

Would popgens be a suitable project under both maths and biology. I'll have a look, my girlfriend's just about to drag me away from the 'puter :) Duncharris 15:13, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Right, had a look. I think we should start a new project at Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Evolution on the same level as the tree of life. Duncharris 15:23, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, I renamed the WikiProject Evolutionary biology to match the discipline name. --Lexor|Talk 16:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start the List of evolutionary biology topics as soon as we can, to start getting a handle on the scope of the topics. We can start bottom-up, with all the see also's in molecular evolution, population genetics etc, and top-down with some topics in List of biology topics. Obviously we won't be including all of these in the footer, but it's useful to have the list and it will help us with the scope of the WikiProject. --Lexor|Talk 16:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm a fan of the MediaWiki msg's, before we go message mad, I suggest we create the list that I suggest above, to get an idea of the scope and classification of the topics, since we are not going to be able to create a footer that includes all of the topics in evolutionary biology (it would be too large). --Lexor|Talk 17:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

What about speciation? Where would that fit in these boxes? Wilke 05:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

How about like the current version at Template:Evolution. --Lexor|Talk 10:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zoology series of articles

I updated the footer to note a need to work on zoology, History of zoology (before Darwin)], History of zoology (since Darwin) articles. Some of the content of these 1911 Britannica articles articles could be saved, but much could simply be dumped. Perhaps this content could be merged in as part of a new history section in the evolutionary biology article, or the history section could link to the history of zoology articles with a Main article: link? Ideas? --Lexor|Talk 07:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with zoology per se is that after WWII ish it gets replaced by a greater ecosystem approach, i.e. ecology. I'll have a look. Duncharris 10:56, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

The second is of historical interest only really as its right in the middle of the Mendelian v Biometrician feud. "What the Lamarckians have in their favour", quite amusing but misleading if you don't know. Move to Wikisource and rewrite? Duncharris 11:02, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, agree, pick the eyes of out the two articles (perhaps the early information on zoology from the first article and some of the historical mendelian/biometrician debate stuff) and merge that information into a ==History== section in the main zoology article and move the original to wikisource. --Lexor|Talk 11:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the box at the top-right of the zoology series is really horrible and should be reformatted! I was looking at the history of zoology articles and the box of the top looks like it's mal-formatted rather than deliberately bad though. --Joe D 22:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categorisation

We need to sort out a categorisation hierachy to implement the new changes instead of the blue boxes. Any ideas? Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could you point me to some documentation that describes what exactly has changed? I noticed that the site has had a major overhaul, but I am not sure what exactly we are supposed to be doing now. Wilke 20:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seeking help on Plant improvement

Plant improvement looks to me like an excellent article poorly translated from Italian. A few of us have done our best to clean up at least the opening part of it, but it's looking more and more like a job for someone with a strong background in biology. Is someone from this project willing to take it on? -- Jmabel 04:00, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Template for Deletion?

The Darwin template is currently listed as a Template for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Darwin). Personally, I am undecided about this template. Perhaps there should be two separate ones—a Darwin geneology template and a separate Darwin template without the genealogy. Still, it bugs me that there wasn't any notification of the proposed deletion on the Charles Darwin talk page or Evolutionary biology WikiProject. I think that there should be some policy that when a template is listed for deletion that the talk page for the article(s) most affected by the deletion should receive a notification. BlankVerse 08:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Biology portal

I encourage you all to help with maintaining the biology Wikiportal connected with this project! Ausir 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How can I join in?

Cool! Can I simply become a participant by adding myself to the list? I would like to add the article on Transitional fossils... Fedor 11:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject game theory announcement

Hello all - I have recently started a WikiProject Game theory. Since there is some use of game theory in evolutionary biology I thought some folks here might be interested in joining. We are just getting started, but please feel free to come by and join in! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello, Please notice this project. I hope that the List of publications in biology will be adopted by the evulotionary biology project. Thanks,APH 06:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Drive

Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week

Chronospecies is a current candidate on Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it here. --Fenice 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week II

This week, we have human genome as the SCOTW. Please also nominate further articles and vote (!), as the current ones are due to expire almost immediately. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics?

there is a lot of math that can be doen with evolutionary biology, from calculating hardy-weinburg equilibrium, to genetic drift, to natural selection. I know something of how all these effect variation and heterozygosity... would it be appropriate to add those equations to the articles? I think an understanding of the mathematics allows a better practical understanding of evolutionary biology.

I think so. I am working on an explination of Landes Model for Sexual Selection. Its all in the presentation I think. --Mike Spenard 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I've started to work on some of the mathematical articles related to evolutionary biology. (See replicator equation for instance.) I'm categorizing these pages as 'Evolutionary Dynamics' (following the convention of Nowak et al from the recent text 'Evolutionary Dynamics') which includes topics from evolutionary game theory (part of the game theory project), population genetics, and newer fields such as evolutionary graph theory (game dynamics in structured populations).

I don't know if this merits its own project. At this point I am just wikifying stuff I know a lot about or personally enjoy; if there is a specific article that you would like to see from mathematical biology let me know and I'll try to get it started if I can.Marc Harper 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open tasks list

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between genetic drift and mutation rate?

Please see the merge request discussion for genetic drift and mutation rate. I would really like this to be clarified. — Donama 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan's genes

Can anyone with genetic expertise have a look at the discussion here? I'm in a dispute there with another editor who claims to be a biology buff. Now I need help to figure out whether my doubts are justified or not. Thanks! --Latebird 12:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (PS: I already posted this in the Biology Portal, but it seems to fit even better here).[reply]

Merges on dominance relationship

Does anyone have time to help with these? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new articles

On a new pages partol I found Evolutionary progress and Largest-Scale Trends in Evolution both created by User:Pdturney. I do not know where they should redirrect to (or if they should be kept). I am sure that this wikproject can find a good homes for them. Jon513 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

human evolution

Hi all, I have been doing a lot of work around Human evolution lately, esp with a new page Human evolution fossils. I am not sure if this is the right place, but I think our human evolution articles would really benefit from a wikiproject. I tried to check and see if there was one already and this is the closest I could find. We have a Template:Human_Evolution but there doesn't seem to be any central organization. In starting a wikiproject I wasn't sure if it should be a daughter project of this one or a completely new one. What do you think? Nowimnthing 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reorganization in saltation-related (and some a bit unrelated) subjects

There are the following articles: rapid modes of evolution, saltationism, mutationism, macromutation, hopeful monster, at least.

I think that they're somewhat messed, and a overall reorganization would be good. I think in something like the "contingent article" being "rapid modes of evolution", in which should or could be added a somewhat "exit" branch section, dealing with rapid change due to natural selection, but with more related branchings, via "see also" or "main article", on the rest of the subjects, or almost all of them.

The rest would present past and modern views on more sudden, non gradualistic modes of change, and all of them, I think, are considerably saltations, even though the currently accepted forms of saltation might be not called so. The distinction would be made, such as, Goldschmidt and others, thought that a reptile could lay an egg with a bird, or whatever they really thought; and these days, the accepted level is much less drastic, such as a snake borning with more ribs or with a lower jaw divided in 2, which could have happened in a saltation, rather than gradually evolving a jaw that were in every generation more thin, more closer to be "broken", and whatever else, with examples, and things related to homeobox genes perhaps. (Maybe including even older ideas of heterogenesis? I.e., ideas of plants bearing insects (as believed by Redi), or even sheeps? (common belief, don't remember of any specific proponent)

Other part, perhaps could clarify the pairs of dichotomies: saltationism vs gradualism - but not phyletic gradualism, whose "nemesis" is punctuated equilibrium, that can be gradual; and between these two there is the punctuated [phyletic] gradualism - and finally, selectionism versus mutationism, which despite of having commonalities with saltationsim, the latter does not "deny" the role of selection entirely, even though can minimize it to a reasonably extent (I think, and I guess I've read something by Gould, on Goldschmidt's ideas in this sense).

Summarizing:

Intro
Gradual rapid evolution (by NS, and whatever else)
Saltation

Early concepts (heterogenesis, De Vries' mutationism and perhaps T.H. Huxley's "salationism" and similar ideas)
Mid 20th century concepts (Goldschmidt and whoever else)
Present concepts ("weak saltationism" of homeobox changes and this sort of stuff)

A nice name for a section dealing with the clarification of the pairs of dichotomies

saltationism vs gradualism
mutationism vs selectionism
puctuated equilibrium, punctuated gradualism and phylitic gradualism

... that's all, I think... but perhaps, the clarification of the dichotomies would deserve its own article or (preferably, I think) a more proper context, since it is not specifically about rapid modes of evolution... in any case, I think that something more or less in these lines would be very desirable. I think that these subjects are somewhat messy and fuzzy as they are now, with blurred distinctions between gradualism and phyletic gradualism, and what opposes to what and exactly to which extent. --Extremophile 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could a portal to these perhaps fit under Macroevolution? In any case, Extremophile, your expertise, would be useful there. -Safay 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution?

As a big fan of biology, I don't see how this statement is accurate, or even helpful, except in "fighting the heretics", so to speak. There are plenty of things that we can observe in biology without evolution. This statement seems more inflammatory than anything else, and despite the interesting link, doesn't seem appropriate for this article, because it is logically incorrect. I propose that the link be moved to the references section of the page, and the title of the article not be used as a non-quoted remark in the main section of the article.--216.227.83.45 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the structure of DNA, to the process of protein synthesis, to the complexity of multicellular life, everything about biology is illuminated and better understood by evolution. It's the source of light in Plato's cave. Of course it is poetic and metaphorical to an extent, but it is largely accurate. --Cody.Pope 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit of selection

Where might this page be categorized in the Topics footer?

Also, I know this is a contentious subject, but perhaps the category of "selection" does not fit under the "population genetics" heading. This shoehorns all of selection within the context of The Modern Synthesis. But then, perhaps for an encyclopedia that is appropriate.

-Safay 02:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Scientific citations

Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining

Hey guys, I've never been part of a project here on wikipedia, do I just add my name on the project page to join or what? (also, answer on my talk page in case I forget to check here for a couple of days, thanks!) --Cody.Pope 05:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add your name. More importantly, visit this page often, to make sure you aren't missing any interesting discussions ....err I mean, visit this page often and strike up interesting conversations. Recruit other interesting editors. Put some life into this thing. linas 05:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistics

I have nominated Cladistics for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Gzkn 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin FAC

Feel welcome to comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAR

Evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Would it be possible to have assessment information added to the template? Richard001 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuated equilibrium GAR

Punctuated equilibrium is up for WP:GA/R#Punctuated_equilibriumGood Article Review. Despite WP:CITE stating that Harvard referencing is acceptable practice on Wikipedia, (and being repeatedly told so) the reviewers are suggesting that the method of citation be changed. Cite.php has been mentioned... It would be A Lot Of Work to change the format of citation to the cite.php method, but looking at Charles Darwin, I see that there are a number of Harvard referencing templates that could be used in punk ekk. So, I guess I'm looking for consensus (help would also be appreciated, too!) on changing the citing method in punk ekk from plain Harvard to "Harvard using templates". Thank you. - Malkinann 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help on articles please

I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.--Urthogie 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology? Jvbishop 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already has plenty of sociology, what it needs is an explanation of the biology involved.--Urthogie 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. Allen Orr?

If anyone here is familiar with the work of an H. Allen Orr, then this article is currently in need of immediate attention. Orr wrote a critical review about Richard Dawkins and that has been the central focus of the article, while the rest of it is essentially copy-pasted from various sources. It would be extremely helpful, if someone who actually knows anything about this man, would come over and help in writing a real biography or oversee that this becomes a fair depiction of Mr. Orr's all round contribution to science and the debate on science and religion. (He is a prominent critic of intelligent design as well as critical of Dawkins and Dennett, but primarily, he should be noted for his work in evolutionary genetics.) Thank you for the help! --Merzul 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hominid intelligence

Hi, Hominid intelligence is a very poor article and should be rewritten. I just linked to it from Mind and can't find a more appropriate article to link to from the Developmental history of the human mind section. — goethean ॐ 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for discussion: Category:Anti-creationism

Hi. I have asked that discussion be brought about Category:Anti-creationism. CFD ENTRY.

I would appreciate input as to how best to define or deal with this category.--ZayZayEM 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Banner

I have recently created a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology which has assessment parameters. I notice that your existing banner does not. Given the amount of overlap in the biology sector, and the concerns expressed elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners, I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in perhaps utilizing the Biology banner, with a "drop down tab" for this project, perhaps similar to the {{WPMILHIST}} banner. Doing so would permit for individual assessment for each project, as that is something the Military History banner does, while at the same time reducing the amount of banner "clutter" on talk pages. If you would be interested in such an arrangement, please let me know and I will work to revise the Biology banner to include the "drop-down" tab and make the other arrangements required for your project, as well as theirs, to have assessment data available. Thank you. John Carter 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge ?

Frozen plasticity. Nothing novel in content. Shyamal 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

I would like to seek advice from anyone in this WikiProject. I feel quite passionate against a section of an article, and in some way, against the whole article as it stands. I would like to hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries which is inside the article List of extinct animals of Europe, because I believe it uses political terms to classify extinct animals, as if Falkland Island Fox is a British extinct subject or a Lava Mouse is a Spanish national. I would propose that we should use scientific terms, such as geographical or geological terms. So if an animal became extinct on the Falkland Islands we should classify it as a American, or at least, a South American extinction and not a European country dependant. The poor animal was never dependant on any country, not even now. I believe this is a use of Human nationalistic pride over extinct animals that never lived in those political constructs because in the first place, they still did not exist. I would propose that we should delete the section hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries just like other articles such as List of extinct animals of Catalonia, List of extinct animals of the Netherlands. I would only accept articles such as List of extinct animals of the British Isles or List of extinct animals of Europe if they use the geographical or geological term. I would even suggest to merge List of extinct animals of Europe with List of extinct animals of Asia into List of extinct animals of Eurasia , because it is a more truly scientific term. Anyway, I would like to know what do you people of the Wikiproject think? Thanks. Francisco Valverde 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

Why is there a wikiproject for evolutionary biology, and one for medical genetics, but there isn't one for just "genetics"? The structure of these wikiprojects seems weird to me. Genetics has been labeled as being part of this project, but that doesn't sit well with me -- it's also within the scope of Medical Genetics, and Molecular and Cellular Biology; it seems to me that "Evolutionary biology" is mostly a subset of Genetics and not the other way around.

I'd like to contribute to wikipedia (well, I already am), but I'd also like to do it in a collaborative way, and I just don't know where to go most of the time. Some examples of my confusion: I'm working on Genetics right now, where do I go to get advice on what to add? I've tried to solicit advice, but it doesn't seem to be working, so I'm flying blind right now. Also, there's a number of genetics articles that need improvement, and images I think are needed, is there some page where people can contribute requests to a list with comments about what sort of improvement is needed? (The generated "articles needing attention" lists are confusing, aren't sorted by date and are lacking comments.) Thanks... Madeleine 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review of Evolution

Hi everybody, comments and suggestions on this core topic are welcome. Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution. Thank you. TimVickers 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital ecology

I wikified this article after a fashion (it was languishing in articles needing wikifying). It makes very little sense to me. I understand that Lynn Margulis' views are controversial, but this is not yet reflected in the article, which could have a "criticism" section. Perhaps it even needs merging. I'm hoping you people will know what to do with it. Thanks. Itsmejudith 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banner template

I've created a redirect using {{EBWP}} if anyone wants to use that instead - it's a little easy to type out and remember. I like to keep template names as simple as possible. If anyone at this project is interested in creating an assessment scheme that would be great too - I like to rate articles and find a banner that doesn't allow that function of little use. I created one for ecology {{See Template:Ecology) which seems to do the trick, even though I know virtually nothing about templates. Someone can probably improve the system if it needs it but it's great to have a system up and running so we can identify the areas that need the most work. Richard001 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Added a shortcut to the project too (WP:WPEB).

Sorry, I'm too impatient for this so I've gone ahead and created an assessment field in the template now based on the ecology template. Hopefully it will work properly and hopefully you all here don't mind me doing so (the assessment system will need to be set up but it isn't too much work). Richard001 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAC

Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vestigiality

Could someone comment on Darwin's views on vestigial structures on the talk page? I'm confused over several passages in Origin of Species and Descent of Man. My reading of his work has lead me to assume he believed there was a Lamarckian aspect to inheritance due to his use of phrases like 'the inherited effects of use and disuse'. Could someone familiar with his work and views please confirm that this was not his viewpoint, and perhaps explain to me how the passages should be read? Richard001 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions

I suggest that we create a larger, better structured article for molecular evolution. Someone would be interested to help me create a framework from the article ?
About the article on Fitness (biology). Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's a huge debate in theoretical ecology about the best measure of fitness; carrying capacity, intrinsic rate of growth, lifetime reproductive output, et cetera... The article is very interesting, but it's only about population genetics. I'm wondering if there's a reason why the perspective from ecology is not included.

-PhDP 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Frost, blond hair blue eyes, etc.

Hi, there's a question about this research at WT:ETHNIC. I poked around a bit and came up empty-handed, so it's looking kinda fringe-theory to me.. but hey, I'm a linguistics guy, what would I know? :-) So.. am I right? Thanks Ling.Nut 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary history of life

hi, i have created this page very recently (18th july 2007) and now i am willing to nom. this page for FAC. is there anything i can do in order to improve this page. please leave your comments on the article's talkpage. thankyou, Sushant gupta 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input on "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" article

If anyone here knows something about "The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems", please comment at its AFD. A guide to deletion discussions is here. Thanks!--Chaser - T 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joining up

Is it possible that I can be signed up to this project? I can't promise a huge amount of participation as I'm a little swamped with family and work but it is my field and I'm eager to contribute in some way. Thanks. AlanD 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]