Talk:Evolution

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Evolution has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class by WikiProject Vital Articles.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Many of these questions are rephrased objections to evolution that users have argued should be included in the text of Evolution. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to evolution, to be interjected into a science article like Evolution.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?

A1: This is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth.

Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Creation–evolution controversy give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not.

Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID.^[1] In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.^[2]

Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Wikipedia's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones.

Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?

A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact.

Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well supported it is.

When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?

A4: Once again, this depends on how one is defining the terms proof and proven. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to an argument or demonstration showing that a proposition is completely certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to the establishment and accumulation of experimental evidence to a degree at which it lends overwhelming support to a proposition. Therefore, a proven proposition in the mathematical sense is one which is formally known to be true, while a proven proposition in the more general sense is one which is widely held to be true because the evidence strongly indicates that this is so ("beyond all reasonable doubt", in legal language).

In the first sense, the whole of evolutionary theory is not proven with absolute certainty, but there are mathematical proofs in evolutionary theory. However, nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on a finite set of facts that have been studied relative to the unproven assumptions of things stirring in the infinite complexity of the world around us. Evolutionary science pushes the threshold of discovery into the unknown. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Absolute proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence, but rather on definition.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

A5: Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales.^[3] However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies.^[4] A famous experiment was developed in 1992 that traced bacterial evolution with precision in a lab. This experiment has subsequently been used to test the accuracy and robustness of methods used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of other organisms with great success.^[5]^[6] Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas,^[7] in the Italian Wall Lizard,^[8] and in Darwin's finches.^[9]

Scientists have observed significant changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution.^[3] So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?

A6: The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different timescales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much.

A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?

A7: To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution:

There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough.
There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Furthermore, technically all fossils are transitional fossils, because no species is fixed and unchanging. For example, you can argue that Homo erectus is a transitional fossil between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis. But in the same line of thought, you can say Homo habilis is a transitional fossil between A. afarensis and Homo erectus, and so on.^[10]^[11]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium".
Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life.^[12]^[13]
Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.
Both the vertebrate eye and the bacterial flagellum are well understood to have evolved from simpler structures. Indeed, simpler eye-like structures (such as the sea squirt's ocellus) can still be found in existing species.^[14] Complex biological traits can also evolve as exaptations, where ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new functions. "Irreducible complexity" is, in any case, neither a scientific concept nor a coherent argument: A less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.^[15]^[16]
Evolution can't create new information.
New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935.^[17]^[18]

With regard to the Wikipedia Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.

Q8: How could life arise by chance?

A8: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life any more than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties—the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

See also

Past discussions

For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Evolution:

The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that evolution is controversial.

The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section.

Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

There is scientific evidence against evolution.

References

^ See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
^ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.
^ ^a ^b The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
^ Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.
^ DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.
^ Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.
^ Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.
^ Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.
^ Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.
^ Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?
^ Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
^ Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
^ Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976
^ Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

Evolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 4, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
February 7, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
May 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Great Wall of China has impacted the process of evolution* in plants?*
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

WikiProject Biology

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

	Biology portal Evolution is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Creationism

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Evolutionary biology

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Molecular Biology / Genetics

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (marked as Top-importance).

WikiProject History of Science

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Religion

(Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Science

(Rated FA-class, High-importance)

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Tree of Life

(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core

(Rated FA-class, Low-importance)

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Version 1.0 articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

	This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Susan Kruglinski (2006-07-02). "Map: Evolution Evolving". Discover (magazine).
Michael Booth (2007-04-30). "Grading Wikipedia". Denver Post.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (2015-08-15). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily.

WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ above, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are interested in discussing or debating over evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins or elsewhere.

Other talk page banners

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "good," even if "stylistic infelicities abound."; "a fine introduction"; "source list appropriate, and well-rounded." Please examine the findings.(Note - this review prompted the drive to bring the article back to FA.)
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article

More archives: Talk:Evolution/Archived subpages, Special:PrefixIndex/Evolution/, Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Evolution/, Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution/

Archives

Index

2003–2005

Historical POV forks

September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005

December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005

June 12–October 24, 2005

October 24–November 23, 2005

November 28–December 14, 2005

December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006

2006

January 2–February 6, 2006

February 6–March 23, 2006

March 3–April 5, 2006

March 31–May 4, 2006

April 20–July 7, 2006

June 24–August 25, 2006

June 27–August 26, 2006

August 18–October 2, 2006

October 1–November 16, 2006

November 6–27, 2006

November 26–December 20, 2006

December 11–23, 2006

December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007

December 20, 2006

December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007

2007

January 21–February 8

February 8–February 18

September 22–November 18

November 18–January 16, 2008

2008

Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Short description[edit]

Per WP:SDESC, I've reverted a revert to a change to the article's short description, changing it back from "a Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" to "Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations". This description is shorter and more concise (as well as properly capitalized), making it follow the guidelines (however it could, and should, be shorter). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

short descriptions cut off after 50 characters Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no they don't. lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SDFORMAT "Short descriptions exceeding 40 characters may be truncated in some contexts" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly, so it should be shortened even further. I'll think about alternatives, but anyone can feel free to change it. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did the reversion as I did not think the new wording was descriptive. I reviewed many definitions online and came up with "How species adapt over generations to their environment". It's 48 characters. I'll make the edit now. Efbrazil (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is much better, it is actually 55 characters, but that is visible on most devices, so that should be fine. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"How species adapt over generations to their environment" is only part of biological evolution. I don't feel the new short description distinguishes evolution from related articles, like adaptation. Kardoen (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a valid point; how about something similar to the article such as "Change in heritable characteristics over generations"? ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wording I came up with is 48 characters if you don't count the spaces.

I don't like "Change in heritable characteristics over generations" as it doesn't describe what evolution does as a function. It's not any change in heritable characteristics, it's the mechanism for adaptation to the environment. Keep in mind that the goal is 50 characters that describe what evolution is (not what it is not, ie adaptation). So, in other words, I still prefer my wording. Efbrazil (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah well sadly spaces are included but that doesn't matter. Nonetheless, Kardoen does have a good point, differentiating it from adaptation is a good idea. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, if what I proposed isn't fully accurate, the article's introduction might need to be expanded, as it states "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Heritable" implies "generations", so if the shortening is needed, that is ok. It is certainly not how species adapt. This would include cultures, such as apes, etc have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think that the current short description is alright? It is a bit long, but that is alright if it is needed to properly describe the article. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not correct to say "Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations"- that applies whether there is evolution pressures or not (genetic drift). If prayer turned apple trees into cherry trees and change was heritable, would that be evolution? What people want is a synopsis of the theory of evolution here, after all that's what the article is all about and what online sources talk about.

I changed it to "How inherited characteristics of a species change to fit their environment", which is a bit longer but at least describes what's going on. We could use words like "Genes" to shorten it, but that's going to be gobblygook to anybody who doesn't know what evolution is. Efbrazil (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't necessarily affect a whole species, isn't population more correct there? ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be fine too (although again, letter count), I mostly just don't think we should be abandoning the idea of adaptation or fitness when we define the word. Also, when evolution is talked about it is usually at a population size that includes all interbreeding members, and that generally means species, unless populations of a species are separated.

I realize I'm somewhat arguing with how the article itself is written, so if people disagree with this change as well I'll take a step back. My concern is that we're pushing a definition that is really about a conceptual space, not about what people are coming to the article for. We had a similar debate on the climate change page, where many people want to define climate change in a general way "e.g. a climate that has changes", and not define it in terms people reading the article actually want, which is the common usage of the term, and also what the entire article is actually about. We should probably do a similar fix to this page as was done there. Efbrazil (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that most people will probably be looking for evolutionary adaptation when coming to the article. But there is a lot of misconception in the general public around evolution being just adaptation. Because of that I think it merits a short description that does not heavily lean into only evolutionary adaptation in lieu of a more general meaning of evolution. Kardoen (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not any change in heritable characteristics, it's the mechanism for adaptation to the environment.

No, that is mutation and natural selection. Evolution is actually defined as change in heritable characteristics, and we quote that definition in the first sentence. Besides adaptive evolution, there is also the neutral theory of molecular evolution and sexual selection. Both are types of evolution but not adaptive. So is Spandrel (biology). --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Efbrazil: by suggesting that genetic drift is not evolution it seems you believe that real evolution has a "direction", and that "nature" acts as if it was intelligent, and adapting its strategies. That might have been how evolution was once seen but I think there are logical problems with that approach and it is no longer what we mean by this term. If, on the other hand, prayer really could cause change in the characteristics which organisms inherited then I'm not sure why it wouldn't be seen as something to discuss in this article? Fact is that it doesn't. My comparison to learned behaviours in animal populations was in contrast not an imaginary example but something which really happens, and which really needs to be clearly distinguished from the topic of this article. I think the comparison to climate change is also a concern at first sight. Evolution is a scientific term and not a "hot topic" in popular culture? I think evolution is clearly a topic where the latest scientific understanding needs to be the standard, and not this or that popular debate.

@Eejit43: I am ok with the short or long version, but not with the "how species adapt" version. I think it is wrong. Evolution concerns types of change which are not defined by any direction, but by the fact that they are inheritable. Terms like "adaptation" should be seen as metaphorical because what drives the change is not changes in strategy, but simply different individuals succeeding or failing to breed. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no I completely agree with you on that, yes. The currently displayed version is what I believe is best as well. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion of "Social and cultural responses"[edit]

I would suggest the heading may be expanded. It is currently the smallest heading within the article. In find this reasonable due to evolution probably being one of the scientific theories who has had the largest non-scientific impact on human life and perception. It could be expanded with status in different world regions, recognition within major religions, a public support chart, and/or a mention of its impact on philosophy.--Marginataen (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrewgarcia1973.

— Assignment last updated by Andrewgarcia1973 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed change to lead[edit]

This text is unnecessary, there is nothing indicating that natural selection wouldn't include sexual selection. — Treetoes023 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Genome42 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree on not mentioning sexual selection in the lead somewhere. If it gets moved to a separate sentence instead I'd be happy with that. Far too often evolution is cast in terms of "survival of the fittest". That phrasing makes people think simply in terms of whichever animal is fastest or strongest being the winner because they survive while the other does not. Sexual selection was a major revelation and a controversial line of thought when discovered because it empowered females, who typically take on more of the burden of raising offspring. It also explained features not explainable otherwise and which creationists held up as counter examples, with the classic example being a peacock's feathers. Efbrazil (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main purpose of this article is to explain evolution to the general reader. We start off with a simple introduction to the basic definition of evolution as a change at the level of genes (alleles). Natural selection and genetic drift account for most of those allele changes in all species including bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and plants.

Sexual selection is a form of natural selection that can be mostly observed in organisms with eyes who exhibit sexual dimorphism and those organisms represent only a tiny percentage of all organisms and therefore only a (very) tiny percentage of all of evolution over the past three billion years. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead because it just perpetuates the misleading idea that evolution is only about big animals and morphological differences.

BTW, Charles Darwin described sexual selection in Origin in the chapter on "Natural Selection" and his description included bird plumage. That was in 1859 and I don't think it was a "major revelation," especially in comparison to the main theme of the book. Genome42 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree that there is an idea out there that evolution is only about big animals. It's always talked about in terms of diseases and the immune system for instance. Where do you get that idea from?

I also fundamentally disagree that gender is unimportant in evolution. Gender supercharged evolutionary processes in several ways, and it is unlikely there would be large, complex creatures without it. Introductory texts on evolution always feature the issue. Relative to other literature, we are under emphasizing it.

For instance, consider how PBS/NOVA covered evolution here. 7 hours of content, 1 hour dedicated exclusively to sex: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

If you are looking to make cuts, how about the last paragraph of the lead? It's mostly just fluff and generalities. Efbrazil (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.

[2] As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

[OriginOfWhales-3] The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

[4] Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.

[Hillis92-5] DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.

[Crandall94-6] Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.

[7] Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.

[8] Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.

[9] Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.

[10] Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.

[11] Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?

[crutch-12] Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.

[13] Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[14] Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976

[15] Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.

[16] Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.

[17] Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.

[18] "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]