Talk:Evolution/Archive 64

New lead first paragraph
The current lead sentence is erroneous and confusing. Hence, it needs to be replaced. Thus far, we have two editors in here who are in agreement that the current lead paragraph suffers from serious flaws. The current lead paragraph does not define evolution, it is a weird and meaningless chimera of definitions of words that sounds like evolution, but fails miserably in its literal translation. We are seeking consensus for the following proposal that was a collaboration:


 * First paragraph: Proposal: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms. Variable characteristics may become common or rare in and across populations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over successive generations as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated."Thompsma (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * SupportThompsma (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's readable and to the point.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In terms of readability, it's not an improvement over the current lede sentence. It also appears to conflate evolution with natural selection. Finally, it also appears to be at variance with many definitions definitions in most standard text. danielkueh (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that the current lead is erroneous and so we are back to square one unless a counter proposal is offered. However, the current proposal does not conflate evolution with NS, that is an error. The definition states explicitly that it "is a natural biological process", natural selection and random drift being key plus it also highlights heritabilty of characters in populations that the current lead misses. Plus the argument of conflating with NS is very weak: “Phylogenetically evolved adaptations qua adaptations are the primary explanandum of natural selection, the central mechanism of neo-Darwinian theory” (Amundson, 1994: 560, Phil. Sci. 61, 556–578). I just pulled that quote out quickly from a pile I have on my desk as I am researching for Evolution as fact and theory. Clearly NS is the central mechanism (as any sane Ebiologist would agree) so how one could make the claim that this is verging on conflating NS with evolution as though the two should be kept entirely separate is not consistent with the literature at large. It is also not a copy of definitions from a standard textbook - yes on this point you are indeed correct - and this is because wikipedia is not a textbook (Surprise!); plus if you look back to those definitions you will note that I was the one that compiled that list, so I am quite familiar with the 'standard textbook definition'. As authors we have minds to read, interpret, and present information without plagiarizing other peoples work. It is a definition that is in accordance with and a summary of peer-reviewed papers and textbooks on the definition of evolution (see lengthy discussion above for extensive links to literature). I am surprised that the error in the current lead is not so blatantly obvious that others would not want it dislodged. The only reason why the current lead is getting away with acceptance is because it is so meaningless that one cannot say what it is confusing evolution with - it is just confusing.Thompsma (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this link to Chapter 11 from Futuyma's book is instructive. On page 283, it states quite clearly that:
 * it is important to recognize that "natural selection" is not synonymous with "evolution".
 * I am not saying that the current lede definition is the best. But it can be easily sourced to fairly standard definitions found in many secondary sources, which makes it consistent with WP's source verification policy. Since it is essentially a paraphrase of many standard definitions, it does not qualify as original research. I cannot say the same about the proposed definition. The current definition may not be the best, but it is still better and easily accessible than the one proposed. danielkueh (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that evolution is not synonymous with evolution. The proposal does not make this claim either. The current lead definition is erroneous, so this is not the matter of best or better, but a matter of correctness. Hence, the current lead cannot be better and easily accessible if it is presenting false and meaningless information.Thompsma (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should let other editors finish voting first before making further comments that might clog up this section. In fact, if this is a serious final proposal, then I recommend inviting the usual suspects to this section of the talk page so that they can comment on the proposal. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Danielkueh...I'll send out the notification some time in the near future. As always, your input is welcomed - but expect frank and direct dialogue from me. I see how the proposal sounds a bit like NS - because it is taking the option of defining evolution as a process, which has been done before in other textbooks. NS is a process as is evolution. Evolution is also a theory about a process. The important lead is frustrating though, because it is flawed.Thompsma (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to re-affirm that many evolutionary biologists and textbooks do define evolution in the way that the current proposal is worded. The problem that has always existed with the lead to this article and the content in the body is that there is too much emphasis on anagenesis and tokogeny. Willi Hennig, the father of modern cladistics, was very clear on the different theoretical frameworks to systematically test aspects to evolutionary theory: semaphorants, tokogeny, phylogeny, cyclomorphic, intraspecific, and specific hypotheses. The large majority of textbooks and authors on evolution define it in very broad terms of anagenesis and cladogenesis:"Biological evolution consists of two processes: anagenesis (or phyletic evolution) and cladogenesis (i.e., splitting)." This article primarily discusses anagenesis at the tokogenic level and the first lead sentence conflates tokogeny and semaphorant development (ontogeny) as a complete definition of evolution. The lead sentence literally states that evolution is only this kind of change, which contradicts every major definition that is out there. It refers to change in the characters, which are the properties of organisms - populations do not have characters, populations have organisms. So if characters are the things doing the change, then all it is saying (when read literally) is organisms are developing and this kind of change is happening in populations. That is not evolution.
 * If you search the literature you will find a great many authors referring to the evolutionary process - reconstructing the evolutionary process in phylogenetics, the speciation process, and so on. I took the option of going this route as did the latest textbook on evolution which has a section about the modern definition of evolution and the concept of evolution as an evolutionary process. There is actually a 2013 edition of that textbook out and I have had a chance to read an advanced copy of it. The current proposal is not conflating evolution with NS - it is saying that evolution is a process. NS is also a process. So in this way they are similar. If I were defining NS I would put forward the three part syllogism, which this lead sentence does not do.Thompsma (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another point about the Futuyma textbook source that you indicated for NS not being a synonym of evolution is that he says "Evolution can occur by processes other than natural selection, especially genetic drift." This is nothing new - every evolutionary biologist has always claimed (even Darwin) that NS is not the only mechanism. The current proposal states this - because it includes both NS and genetic drift (i.e., sorting), which is exactly what Futuyma is saying. Plus the current proposal does not say that these mechanisms are exclusive, which is why it elaborates in the 2nd and 3rd sentence on speciation, biogeography, and ecology.Thompsma (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I support with the possiblity of tweaking if needed. Daniel you may note I had the same concern that it would conflate issues but I think the take home message is Evolution by Natural selection and Evolution by Genetic Drift, because "change" in the present definition has no context. I really believe this on the right track but I respect other editors opinions too. But just because the present is a common definition in a Campbell General Biology text the caveat is the book is very general with some definitions or information is inaccurate-like Prokaryotes lack organelles is a common mantra of survey biology courses although it is completely inaccurate. This really highlights salient points of evolution that can be amplified in the text, and take this article up a notch compared to general text books or encyclopedias. Thompsma has debated and supported his posits with excellent peer-reviewed article so I think opposing opinions need to make similar posits to be fair. Cheers GetAgrippa (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are worried about context, then that is a question of writing style, which can be easily addressed by adding more sentences that provide context. Otherwise, I cannot support the current proposal. I have never seen evolution defined that way, neither in academic (freshmen to graduate level) texts nor in non-technical books. I have only seen it here. It is simply inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies of needing verification and no original research. Plus, it is incomprehensible. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This definition does exist in the literature Danielkueh. I suggest you go to the Strickberger's evolution textbook and read the section on evolution as a process. This was also inspired from several other citable resources - including the Gould and Vrba (1986) paper on selection and sorting and Elliot Sober has also written about evolution in this way (for e.g., here). A summary of the definitions in the list that you linked too above (that I originally posted) also defines evolution in these terms. Some are more narrow, others are more broad. Once again, this is not a direct quote - nor is it original research as you allude to below - it is a broad summary of the literature and the way that evolution is actually defined. Re-read the current lead sentence. It is saying that evolution could be interpreted as change in an individuals developmental growth. An individuals heritable characters change during development and this occurs in populations, but it is not evolution. Hence, I do not know how you could say that you have not seen evolution defined in the way proposed (which is a summary of the way that evolution is defined in citable sources) while maintaining that the current erroneous lead sentence (which has never been defined in that way in any citable source) is superior.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Vrba and Gould (1986) does not define evolution the way your proposal does. On p. 217, they merely state that "evolutionary change is the product of sorting (differential birth and...)," i.e., evolution can result from natural selection. That is different from saying "evolution is sorting." I didn't go through other two references because I do not have time. Besides, it is overkill and in all likelihood, I'm probably not going to find anything. Also, I have read the current lead and it does not make the claim that you say it does. And if it did, then all it needs is just a minor adjustment. I think you are getting petty with "who started or compiled the list of definitions." It's irrelevant. For the record, it was I who started that list. You supplemented it. danielkueh (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Danielkueh...no need to get personal and start calling me petty. I have never launched an attack on your personal nature, but will attack the concepts that are posted. It is my understanding that this is good academic practice and leads to fruitful dialogue. I apologize if I was mistaken on who started that list of definitions - my stamp/signature was at the end of the post, so I mistakenly thought that I had initiated that list - certainly we are in agreement that I did lots to expand it. The point was that I am well familiar with the cast of definitions that exist out in textbooks and in the literature. Reading through that comprehensive list, not one of those definitions is in conflict with the current proposal.
 * With respect to the current lead sentence you are mistaken and I think you need to re-read it again carefully. As I stated before and everyone is in agreement that populations do not have traits, organisms do. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Hence - this is saying that evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of organisms, because populations cannot and do not have inherited characteristics by definition - unless you are an ultra-group naive selectionist and I think you are not one of these. Therefore, the literal translation reads that evolution is change in the inherited characters of organisms that live in biological populations over success generations. Developmental characters do change and they are inherited and they are found in populations - this is all true, but it is not evolution. Even with a small tweak the definition offers a very weak form of causal explanation that could lead to an improved understanding of the concept.
 * Your next point stating that you do not have time to read the literature that is being provided while also critiquing the proposal on the grounds that it is not supported by the literature is unacceptable and indefensible. I spent my time reading and researching the literature in my postings and expect the same in return if it is going to be rejected. Vrba & Gould (1986) like most evolutionary biologist (including the Futuyma text link you provided above) have all identified the causal process of evolution to include selection (short for NS - causal) and sorting (or random genetic drift). Quoting from Vrba & Gould (1986) we do not find a statement to the effect of "evolution is defined as", but we find the following: "Entities that play the same role in the evolutionary process must be classed together...We must consider the evolutionary process itself as basic, and explore its common modes of action up and down the hierarchy particularly interactions between levels (see also Pattee 1770; Hull, 1780)...Such an approach provides a proper framework for understanding evolution as a historically contingent process, and for grasping the primary trends of that history itself." This closely parallels the process definition (i.e., the evolutionary process itself as basic - emphasis added) in the proposal supplied, thus it provides the framework for understanding evolution. Charles Darwin championed evolutionary theory through natural selection (he also wrote about random sorting in other terms), whereas the modern synthesis brought in terms of random sorting at the genetic level.
 * If you do not want to read the wp:v cited information because you "do not have time" - then I recommend you keep your objections silent, because this kind of argument is weak. I also recommend that you do read the section titled "Evolution: An overview of the term and the concepts" in Strickberger's Evolution textbook. The last sub-section ends on the modern concept of evolution as a process, which was partially responsible for the inspiration in the current proposal. That textbook suggests that any definition or conceptual understanding of evolution should work across the different levels - genetic, organismal, and/or populations; which sounds a lot like the Vrba & Gould recommendation. I could provide a long-list of citations suggesting that this is a requirement for understanding the concept of evolution. The current proposal does this and it adopts its terms from a wide review of relevant literature on the modern concept and definition of evolution in both peer-reviewed and 2ndary literature.
 * Who would disagree that evolution is a natural biological process? Who would disagree that evolution is the selection of characters? Who would disagree that evolution is the sorting of characters? Characters encompass both phenotypes and genotypes. Who would disagree that the selection and sorting of characters of organisms (not populations) is quintessential evolution? The current proposal suggests that all these things are encapsulated in the concept and definition of evolution, plus the third sentence brings in the theoretical explanatory component - a critical element to the concept. Once again - my post is not a personal attack on you. I may be blunt and direct in my critiques. However, I have always appreciated your input and your assistance. Even in opposition to my ideas you are helping to sharpen the conceptual foundations and knowledge that I have about evolution and how I may assist in here. However, the definition provided in this proposal is not a cheap copy borrowed from a singular textbook definition of evolution, but rather it is an integrated proposal that has been thoroughly researched, debated, and it broadly covers the definitions that exist in the literature at large.Thompsma (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time to do your work for you because it is not my responsibility to be looking through all the references that you throw in my direction. If you want me to read or review something, then have the courtesy of pointing to a specific sentence and inclusive page number, followed by a simple and straightforward explanation of why you think that statement explicitly defines evolution the way your proposal does. So far, you have not made a convincing case. Finally, you are not in the position to be telling me to keep my objections silent or anything else for that matter. You don't own this article. And until there is an overwhelming and strong consensus among the editors here that your proposal is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, there is really nothing more for us to discuss. danielkueh (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support If we could only go back to User:TimVickers' version. It was readable and accurate. This used to be readable and accurate. Someone made it a mess. Where are you Tim? Long gone I suppose, like all of the other outstanding editors that used to be here. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objections going to back to Tim Vickers's version. But I think you should read the present proposal carefully before writing "support" to avoid confusion. :) danielkueh (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone can post or link to the old version being mentioned?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a sample of this article when Tim was active. danielkueh (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added it for comparison above, in a table format. I like some aspects of it, but I guess Thompsma would say it has the same "mistakes".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew - I hope that you will understand my objection to the current lead, because your posting suggests that you still have not understood the glaring error in the current lead. TimVickers version is better, because it does not make the claim that populations have traits. My only concern is that it suggests that the traits are changing. Individual traits are heritable, which means that their intrinsic properties are preserved. The traits do not change, they are eliminated, replaced, or preserved, which is why it is a population level phenomena that we are dealing with.Thompsma (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree it's better than the current lead paragraph. It's more understandable and more to the point (hence, more readable to the general reader).  I can agree with those who wish to reserve the right to revisit certain aspects of it in the future, but for now it is certainly an improvement to the article.  I say make the change and move forward. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 04:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps compromise because the current lead really refers to process and partly says so: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary "processes" give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

So the second sentence refers to process. But change does to. So maybe a hybrid: Evolution is the change (selection and sorting of variable traits so they become more common or rare) in the inherited characteristics of biological populations (altering the distrbution of traits in individuals of the population) over successive generations. Or something like that if it will make it more palatable to bridge the two. GetAgrippa (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first priority needs to be accuracy. The second priority is accessibility. Both are important and an ideal text has both, but when no option has been found that has both, and one is accurate while the other is readable, accuracy wins. The proposed text conflates evolution with natural selection, and is therefore inaccurate as a definition. Plus I don't think it is in fact any more readable than the existing text. Joannamasel (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a solution would be to add a qualifier after the current definition. The current definition is: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This change is result of the selecting and sorting of heritable traits of individuals within a population so various traits become more or less common within or across populations. That way it qualifies what changes (not the traits but the frequency of traits in the population), it qualifies that it is individuals that are changing in the population, the change is heritable, and how they change-traits become more or less common. I would compromise to keep the current definition if it is qualifies what is changing related to a trait (not the trait but frequency), how it changes (become more or less common), and why it changes (mostly selection and drift). Unless you already understand evolution the current definion can be misleading. Populations don't have traits-individuals do (gee we can hardly agree on a species definition), it isn't the variation in traits (the traits change say a mutation that produces a defective enzyme that produces a white rather than purple pea flowers isn't evolution) but the distribution or frequency of traits (whether the white or purple become more common or less), doesn't mention a need for a process or mechanism for this change- so implied is evolution always occurs independent of any mechanism or process rather than without these processes at play a population is non-evolving in Hardy-Weinberg equilibriuim. The present definition needs a qualifier for the layperson to understand what the words are referring to. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * GetAgrippa, I think that is good suggestion. Adding another sentence to qualify the lede statement or introduce evolutionary processes will also help bridge the first and second sentences of the current lede. danielkueh (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But isn't this the classic mistake for leads on WP? We seem to be trying to fit absolutely everything into the first few words of the article. Why? It is impossible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I agree that we should avoid squeezing every conceivable information in the first sentence of the lede. But I think the emphasis here is to improve readability rather than focusing on expanding content. I think one sentence (no more) to help bridge the first and last two sentences of the current lede would be nice. Right now, the first two sentences appear to be "stitched together." This is not something I feel strongly about. But if we were to do it, this would be my rationale. danielkueh (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To joanna - it does not conflate evolution with NS, because it says AND sorting. If it conflates evolution with NS it would say evolution is NS. Note to Daniel...it is lead, not lede - see Lead_section. GetAgrippa offers a good suggestion, but it does introduce the problem of squeezing more information into several sentences what could be accomplished in one. So we are left with a poor first sentence that is repaired by a qualifying statement to follow. I prefer a solid first sentence that offers an explanation of what evolution is so the reader can leave with an understanding of the theory.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As per DanielKueh and Joannamasel. It is not better writing, and it is not more accurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Low readability, and introducing randomness as an efficient cause is an ontological claim which is not elaborated or supported by the article as a whole. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I think Andrew Lancaster's version looks just as fine as the original. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not introducing randomness as an efficient cause - quite the opposite: "...the traditional equation of selection (a cause of sorting) with sorting itself (differential birth and death among varying organisms within a population) would rarely lead to error, even though the phenomena are logically distinct (for sorting is a simple description of differential "success," and selection a causal process)."Thompsma (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting close to the core of the controversy surrounding evolution: Can sufficiency, rarely but nevertheless consistently, arise from deficiency? This touches metaphysics. Possible to review, difficult to discuss without a significant intake of red wine. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perpetual motion v. "self"-organising evolution
The article may give an impression that evolution is some sort of perpetual motion machine (articles such as Butterfly effect suffer from the same challenge). The idea that something is consistently "self"-organising contradicts basic thermodynamics (solar energy ultimately caused (cf. causality) by Big Bang is required, hence the indication that the observed continuous evolution is "self"-organising becomes misleading). In order to alleviate this problem the article ought to include something about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any suggestions for literature? Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the article I am no longer sure whether any particular part of it gives the impression of evolution being a perpetual motion machine. I could have deleted the above comment, but I let it stay in case someone else has something to add. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be explanatory to include a section which briefly explains how solar energy and photosynthesis cause the energy and Gibbs free energy required for non-random evolution to take place - or, alternatively, to have a section discuss randomness and non-randomness in relation to evolution. This aspect of evolution is not always well understood, and this might prove illuminating to readers. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Living systems are open systems not closed. The 2nd law is related to energy transformations and entropy (the amount of energy unavailable in a system to perform work which always increases)- it isn't related to order or disorder. The free energy is the portion of energy in a system available for work, and a measure of the instability of a system and tendency to become more stable. It isn't about order or disorder but unstable and stable. In any case evolution can be random-drift or nonrandom-natural selection. If you want to make an analogy with order and disorder then you could say that entropy drives the universe and order. No matter the chemical reactions and order of molecules the total entropy will always increase. Bottom line is the laws of thermodyanimcs are supported by evolution and not in conflict. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * evolution can be random-drift and the laws of thermodyanimcs are supported by evolution and not in conflict. These two statements seem to be in conflict. It illustrates that this is a difficult subject-matter, and that clear representations of it may be needed in the article. It relates to the perhaps confounding question of whether everything is domineered by causality or not, and may involve arguments surrounding free will etc. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how those two statements are in conflict. thx1138 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Second Law limits the role of randomness that can be involved in cases which can be described generally. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Narssarssuaq your posits are inconsitent with know self-organizing systems in chemitry, physics, and biology. Are you saying there is no such thing as a self-organizing system???? Further there seems to be confusion related to the biology of evolution and the physics of thermodynamics. I see no conflicts. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Second Law disallows that anything is "self"-organising in a strict sense. Statistical thermodynamics does accept that one-of-a-kind events, to which no law can be ascribed, i.e. randomness, can cause something. The overarching view in physics, however, is that in all cases which can be described generally, a "self"-organising system needs an input of "quality" from outside itself: otherwise, evolution would be a perpetual motion machine. This contradicts a strong definition of "self" in "self"-organising; that concept of "self" takes several things such as the sun and its radiation for granted through reductionism. In other words, evolution is not its own driving force or organising force; as a system denotes something which has an environment with which it must interact if it is not to degenerate, no self-organising system in the strict sense exists according to the Second Law. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict. GetAgrippa has it correct in terms of open v. closed systems. If there was a conflict between some of the basic laws of physics and evolution I think we would have heard about it by now. Here is a quote from an article to settle this dispute. I wish people would refer to the literature rather than listening to their own opinions and bias - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

A prime example is provided by the chronically misunderstood Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that “the entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” In this case, the conditions are very clearly specified: if there is no external source of energy (“a closed system”), then there will be a net increase in disorder until the system reaches equilibrium. Local increases in order are not precluded (ornate snowflakes still form from water vapor), and of course, this does not apply to living things, which draw energy from their environments (and ultimately from the sun), and hence, represent open systems. Readers of this article establish this latter claim conclusively, having passed from a simple zygote to a complex organism composed of trillions of specialized cells. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics implied that all natural increases in order were impossible, then it would be incorrect. It does not and (so far as we know) is not. The broader point is that invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution reveals a misunderstanding of both the scope of this particular law and of the meaning of “law” in science generally."
 * For further information on this, Daniel Brooks and Edward Wiley wrote a book on "Evolution as Entropy" - Brooks has also published further papers on this (here for e.g.). I'll leave it up to others to do the literature search, this has been covered extensively in textbooks and in journal articles.Thompsma (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Again, I am not making a claim that "evolution" is invalid, but pointing out the incoherence between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and a particular, let us call it metaphysical, interpretation of evolution which construes evolution as a "self"-sufficient cause of all life. As already mentioned, it would seem that the article steers clear of this question, but it might want to dive into this matter as there is a certain degree of controversy and need for knowledge involved. It would require a literature search. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The earth gets a constant supply of heat from the sun, so there is no conflict. thx1138 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Self-sufficiency Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Evolution is a theory about life on earth. The 2nd Law doesn't say systems can't self-organize. It just says that in a close system, entropy will tend to increase over time. The entropy of the universe is increasing, so I don't see what the conflict is. thx1138 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me re-phrase: The 2nd Law says that isolated systems cannot consistently (self-)organize. Not everybody knows this. Some strong interpretations of evolution presume that life, society, the biosphere, whereever you want to draw the dividing line, is isolated, and thus self-organizes (isolated and self correspond), i.e. no external cause contributes. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of such an interpretation of the theory of evolution. All models for the origin of life, which is abiogenesis, not stricly evolution, include a heat source, either from the sun or from vulcanism, or both. thx1138 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You might find this interpretation in inductive proofs for certain metaphysical tenets, where the reductionism inherent to the interpretation gives rise to overly reductionist rather than holistic metaphysics or even ethics. I'll end this discussion here for my part by saying that all of this is supplementary information which could be worth including provided that we find a very good and essentially uncontroversial source. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're talking about evolution at all. thx1138 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is evolution a controversial subject? Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because some preachers didn't like their literalist interpretation of Genesis being challenged. thx1138 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why the current lead sentence is erroneous
The current lead sentence states: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This claims that biological populations have inherited characteristics. Populations do not have characteristics, organisms do. Of course, one could make the argument that populations do have characteristics - but that is outside the scope of the basic concept of evolution. Systematicists study organisms to infer and test phylogenetic relations according to the nature of their perceptions and documentations of the characteristics (i.e., the evidence), but they do not infer phylogenies with populations as terminal nodes according to the characteristics of those populations as this lead sentence would have us believe. The inherited characteristics of organisms that inhabit those populations do change as they develop, but that is not evolution in the exclusive meaning of the term. It does not matter if this says things are taking place over successive generations, because organisms develop over successive generations - a cyclomorphic hypothesis (see page 42 in Hennig's Phylogenetic Systematics and Figure 1 in this paper for a reconstruction of Hennig's Figure 6 illustrating cyclomorphism); note that in reference to cyclomophism Hennig refers to successive generations in the same way that the current lead does. While this could loosely be interpreted to mean that the change being referred to is evolutionary change, the kind captured in the statement descent with modification, but why would anyone want a lead sentence that gives a vague definition of evolution that intersects other forms of change that is not considered evolutionary proper? I am asking editors to think about this carefully, because we have had an erroneous lead sentence sitting at the fore of this article for how long now? It takes nothing short of a revolution to get this error dislodged and still there is an old cohort of 'experts' in here that want to retain this error because it "reads better and it is more accurate". Nonsense! Can we not use reason and logic to defend our claims and work?Thompsma (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thompsma, you will not achieve agreement by continually starting long new diatribes which just answer criticism by calling it nonsense etc etc. The current opening line simply does not say that the inherited characteristics within populations are not inherited by individuals. It does not say anything about the exact mechanism of inheritance within populations. We simple can not fit everything into a lead sentence or lead paragraph or lead generally - and especially not if we go trying to insert responses to all highly improbable misunderstandings. Where would we end?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to make a super simple version after looking at the old Tim Vickers version, but which specifies (unnecessarily in my opinion) individuals. See the table I inserted up above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This relates to the Ecological fallacy. It is an interesting observation. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in hearing logical grounds for rejection of the argument, not at all interested if you think it is an annoying diatribe or not. At least Narssarssuaq read the point of the post. It is not the same as the ecological fallacy, but a similar point. It is a point that evolutionary biologists have recognized for ages that evolution is a population level phenomena. It is the unaltering heritable variation within populations that is being selected (causal) and sorted (accidental randomness). The characters themselves do not change, but they are eliminated, preserved, or replaced in the struggle for existence. The jostling for survival in the Malthusian growth of replicators is what causes the gradual departure in lineages. I oppose your new proposal Andrew - because it offers no causal explanation of what is going on. Evolution is a theory that offers causal explanations for the change. Just saying evolution is change is insufficient, because it offers no explanatory context for readers to understand what the theory is about.Thompsma (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The extreme controversy surrounding evolution arises precisely from disagreements as to its cause(s). This might be more difficult (or simple) than anyone can imagine, cf. causality. If something is to be added about this matter, it must be a thorough presentation of different causal theories. I tried suggesting something of this nature in the above, but there was already an irreconcilable controversy when discussing this, so we are apparently approaching factors intrinsic to someone's worldview, which calls for sobriety and a certain degree of openness in the discussion - if the discussion is appropriate, that is. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not a forum for discussing causality in evolution, that has already been done for us in the literature. Evolutionary hypotheses are adduced to provide causal understanding as historical explanations of current effects. Of course there is a cause of mutation. This was what occurred in the classical debate of Lysenkoism (reviewed in "The Dialectical Biologist". The Russian scientific community thought the random genetic explanation was a ploy by the US to take causality out of the equation. For every effect of course there was a cause, but what are we trying to explain in evolutionary theory? Random mutations are caused by something (radiation, DNA strand slippage, cross overs, etc.) but this is not an evolutionary causal explanation accounting for the differences between organisms.Thompsma (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we are getting to the core of the philosophical question that really needs to be discussed here, and that apparently unites all these concerns: should the first sentence about "Evolution" already seek to give explanation, theories and causality, not just a description of evolution which will be discussed in the article as it proceeds? Is that what is really being demanded?
 * Thompsma wrote: "I oppose your new proposal Andrew - because it offers no causal explanation of what is going on. Evolution is a theory that offers causal explanations for the change. Just saying evolution is change is insufficient, because it offers no explanatory context for readers to understand what the theory is about."
 * I have been writing, in opposition to this, that the lead sentence for any article about X should just describe X, not seek to fit in the explanation. That is what the rest of the article is for. In many cases, by the way, explanations involve considerations of inconclusive controversies. Note that we also have other articles about such things as natural selection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the emphasis you want to make between what is random or the opposite (ie having direction or an aim), just to make the same point already made earlier, is not really something from modern science. It is a philosophical concept which makes sense in Aristotle's metaphysics. I do not think it fits here at all, although I know many biologists are more influenced by Aristotle than they realise, and still talk of more or less advanced species. There is no direction in evolution, or even better, there is no simple way of defining any distinction between random and non-random.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

convenience break
New tabulation, with new proposal going beyond the first sentence. Looking at the comments of others, some notes:- Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction between selection and drift is discussed later. If we keep duplicating and moving things closer to the beginning the article will be a mess.
 * The point about evolution only applying to individuals was adjusted after extensive discussion on this talk page, and was the reason for the every level wording. I do not have strong feelings about that myself, but I remember that there was controversy, and I see no reason for the lead sentence to take a side if there is a controversy.
 * I appreciate the work you are doing here Andrew to summarize things and bring this together. Great job. Your point about just describing X, not offering an explanation in the first sentence is helpful. Description and explanation, however, are not so easy to separate. In the realm of scientific understanding there is an intimate duality between the description of things that exist and the causal explanation of the facts. In describing something you are at the same time offering what has been called an explanatory sketch (Hempel 1965). Descriptions offer illustrations, sketches, or a picture in words to represent what is being described. Evolution is a theory about a historical process. Are you suggesting that we describe the historical process to define the theory without explanation? Good luck with that.
 * My concern with your proposal is that it also implies a progressive nature to evolution - "builds up". Note the upward metaphor and building implying that there is an additive complexity. What about stasis and preservation of traits? This brings us into new philosophical territory that could swing into a larger debate. My concern with TimVickers version is "process of change" is left hanging. What is a process of change? We should be explicit. The process was outlined by Darwin and subsequent evolutionary biologists to include NS and drift. Plus, change is not the relevant feature of evolution, it is the differences and the explanation of those differences that evolutionary biologists are concerned about. Put the emphasis on variation, not change. Variation is the key component, because some things that evolve might for a long period of time remain unchanged.Thompsma (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What a fascinating discussion! Thompsma, do you have reliable sources which take the line we are suggesting the article should take? --John (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thompsma:
 * You are correct that accumulating or building up of "change" should not be read to imply a direction. I am not sure it does, but I think John Armagh's proposal to use of the word frequency addresses this reasonably well? (Unfortunately it means a slightly more jargony word. Even for well educated people, biology uses this word differently than other fields, to mean % rather than raw numbers.)
 * I personally do not like versions which insert vague terms like "process".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not merely a "change" in traits in a population which constitutes evolution, but the change of the proportion of organisms in a population possessing any particular trait. Evolution is not demonstrated solely by a trait emerging or disappearing from the population, as inferred by the current lead.   A more accurate and more appropriate definition would therefore be "the change of frequency of heritable traits in a population of organisms over generations of reproduction". JohnArmagh (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great posits. Perhaps "change" is the problem and a derivation of Tim Vickers would work. "In biology, evolution is explanatory of the differences in the inherited traits (as they become more common or rare) within and across populations over successive generations." or "In biology, evolution is the process whereby inherited traits become more common or rare within and across populations over successive generations". Then hydridize the second sentence:"Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places, and evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." Iknow rein in it. But this discourse is productive. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So my final suggestion is: In biology, evolution is the process explanatory of the differences in the inherited traits (as they become more common or rare) within and across populations over successive generations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places, and evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." So a little gene flow and hybridization to create this. hee,hee,hee. Upon reflection it is a monstrosity-a mutation. So: "In biology, evolution is the process whereby inherited traits become more common or rare within and across populations over successive generations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places, and evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." GetAgrippa (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of all the proposals, I like JohnArmagh's proposal the best. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to try for something which balance accuracy with accessibility.--John (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * JohnArmagh's proposal is only for an adjustment in wording, and seems reasonable, whichever proposal it would be applied to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * JohnArmagh has it. Now to put it all together.Thompsma (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Andrew that 'frequency' might be a bit confusing to some readers - proportion might be superior. I agree with GetAgrippa to hybridize with the "evolution explains "part. The current lead 2nd sentence, "processes give rise to diversity", suffers from the same problem as "builds up" discussed previously. TimVickers version is long and I disagree with the concept that genes producing inherited traits as the basis of evolution - Richard Lewontin and Stephen J. Gould and their comrades have gone at great lengths to purge that idea and I agree with their conclusions on this. I think the "evolution explains" captures Andrews two sentences in one, plus evolution does not "result in something" like an experiment does - there are effects and phenomena to explain, but results implies experimentation, which is not the right sentiment we want to get across here. Hence, I offer the following summary:
 * Evolution is the change in proportions of variable heritable traits in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated.Thompsma (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this a bit further...it is not only change in proportions, but there is replacement to consider as well.


 * Evolution is the change in proportions and origins of variable heritable traits in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated.
 * Remember that this is not saying evolution is the origins of variable traits in the same way that people earlier suggested that I was conflating evolution with NS - because the word AND means that the two are integrated. I still prefer my first proposal that started this discussion, which was simpler and still covered all these concepts.Thompsma (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going along with this idea of change, although I don't agree with it but it seems like I will not win everyone over on this. Evolution is not synonymous with change. Are we going to start saying that horseshoe crabs and the coelacanth are examples of organisms that do not evolve? As living fossils we often hear that they have not changed. This is why developmental biologists get into such disagreement with (what I like to call) the accountants of evolution - those who like to add up the change as a definition of evolution in itself (i.e., the sum instead of the integration). Darwin struggled between natural selection v. natural preservation, which to call it? I imagine people would be thinking less of change if Darwin had gone with preservation instead.Thompsma (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All populations of organisms which have genetic variation (i.e. all which reproduce sexually) possess the potential for evolution; whether that potential is realised is dependent on the factors which drive natural selection: the prevailing environmental pressures on the phenotype together with genetic drift. Stasis in a population merely indicates that neither factor placed significant evolutionary pressure on the traits of the organism. It should be noted also that increasing specialisation will narrow the range of environment which the organism can tolerate, leading to susceptibility to evolution or extinction (depending on the availability of beneficial traits). A more generalised phenotype will have a greater environmental tolerance and less susceptible to evolutionary pressure. JohnArmagh (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Evolution is not a force like pressure, despite the common metaphorical usage of that term. Your adduced theory JohnArmagh is fine, but I disagree. It is the basis of genetic essentialism that we see in here all the time (I could have predicted it from the definition you offered, which was a fine definition btw), but it puts undue emphasis on genetic variation as the primary component of evolution. Stasis in a population does not merely indicate something, it suggests a hypothesis that you have forwarded here and it is not strongly supported according to my information. Do you have a citation for that hypothesis? Your post also uses a ton of loaded terminology in surprising ways - "tolerate" "susceptibility to evolution" "potential for evolution". There are numerous hypotheses for stasis that have been forwarded in the literature and tested. An evolutionary stable strategy of antagonistic pleiotropy, for example, might work for the kind of stasis your are referring to, but I have my doubts that it would account for billions of years. What is a generalized phenotype? Is that something that has a wide reaction norm? A theory that evo-devo biologists have forwarded is called Rupert Riedl's burden (see also here). This hypothesis posits that once a foundation is laid, such as the notochord in vertebrates, it becomes burdened as other traits, such as vertebrae or brains, build onto that foundation as developmental modules - each module becomes semi-independent in its reaction norm. The notochord is an ancient structure that has changed little. The concept of burden also applies to stable hox gene complexes. Other theories on stasis in the fossil record indicate that widespread geographic distribution of a species plays a major role, which accords with the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution where selection has a larger statistical role to play in a smaller gene pool:


 * "Stasis is generally defined as little or no net accrued species-wide morphological change during a species-lineage’s existence up to millions of years—instantly begging the question of the precise meaning of ‘‘little or no’’ net evolutionary change."Thompsma (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "What is a generalized phenotype?" - I said more generalised, i.e. comparatively - neither generalised nor specialised are absolutes - merely comparisons. It is quite apparent that a species which is, for instance, specialised to a particular diet (i.e. bamboo, or eucalyptus) is more vulnerable to environmental change than one which has a tolerance for a wider diet - and that latter will be the more generalised phenotype.  The assertion that terms such as "tolerant" are in any way loaded is only if one is determined to apply those terms anthropocentrically (which is a typical Creationist method of application).  The word 'tolerance' as applied in the fields of engineering and physiology etc. do not infer any element of conscious determination. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Evolution is an effect rather than, as stated above, a cause.   Evolution is no more than the by-product of genetic mutation (producing variation of traits) and environmental pressures (reducing the variation of traits to those most conducive in the prevailing environment).  Evolution is not the driver - but rather those processes (mutation and natural selection) which drive the diversity of life. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why I proposed "Evolution is explanatory" (of the effect) of the differences in trait frequency. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Evolution is both cause and effect as has been stated numerous times in the literature on niche construction and by notable evolutionary biologists: “ … genes, organisms and environments are in reciprocal interaction with each other in such a way that each is both cause and effect in a quite complex, although perfectly analysable, way” (Lewontin, 1983, P. 276 Gene, organism, and environment). The statement above that "Evolution is no more..." is false, evolution is much more than disclosed. The second sentence offered on "evolution explains" is a bit of a cheat, because evolution doesn't explain anything. It should be worded as "The scientific theory of evolution explains...". The information that JohnArmagh gives on generalized v. specialized is adopted from the ecological literature that I am well familiar with, but I requested a citation supporting that supposition in relation to evolutionary stasis over millions of years.Thompsma (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To JohnArmagh - the reason why your statement on "Evolution is no more than...genetic mutation and environmental pressures..." is false, is because you have forgotten about the feedback that life exerts on itself. The environmental "pressures" - I prefer the term environmental fluctuations that Darwin used - are in part niche constructed by the ecological or developmental actions of organisms themselves. Moreover, genetic mutation is not the only environmental fluctuation that can generate heritable variability in the process, although Richard Dawkins would extend the term gene to include all forms of reliable information transfer. Gould, Lewontin, and many others have argued fiercely against this form of genetic essentialism and as per WP:NPOV we are obliged to heed their words. There is no real separation between gene and environment, that kind of distinction is peculiar. When a gene mutates the environment instantly mutates along with it, it becomes a different environment. Evolutionary biologists (notably many of the mathematical geneticists, not all, but many) historically held the environment as a constant, but that supposition is logically inconsistent with reality. Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins are two authors that have written extensively on this, but a host of other publishing authors (e.g., Raphael Falk, and the Laland research group) have written about the influence and rejection of genetic essentialism in evolutionary theory - Sewall Wright and George Gaylord Simpson could be included among this group. Even George Williams extended his genetical theory of evolution well beyond the all inclusive umbrella that Dawkin's adopted from William's work. Evolution is a science that extends beyond genetics (as important as that discipline is to the study of evolution), because it includes a lot of theory (historical and contemporary) from eco-evo-devo in short. I would posit that Darwin was the first eco-evo-devo evolutionary biologist there was.Thompsma (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have, in fact, forgotten no such thing. What you appear to have failed to appreciate is that the organisms themselves, the parents, the offspring, the siblings, the potential mates, the predators, the prey, the organisms which affect the environment in any way, even by their presence, even the other genes in the genome are all contributory to the environmental pressures.  When one speaks of the environmental pressures contributing to natural selection one is of necessity including the organic factors as well as the climate and geography.  Therefore, contrary to your assertion, my statement was not false.  However, your interpretation of it was.  JohnArmagh (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Current proposal on the table
Everyone above (including me) seems to agree that JohnArmagh helped in his posting on frequencies of traits above. Summarizing the comments of others with a few editorial and conceptual modifications, I would like to forward the following to be the new first paragraph of the lead and looking forward to hearing everyone's constructive input:


 * Evolution is the change in proportions and origins of variable heritable traits in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. The scientific theory of evolution explains observations and facts about the complexity of biological nature. It explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated. The evolutionary processes of natural selection and sorting of traits in populations is both a cause and effect of the diversity expressed at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. Thompsma (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more keen if it was a little more concise. Here is what I'm thinking:
 * Evolution is the change in the proportion s and origins of variable heritable  inherited traits with in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. The scientific theory of evolution explains observations and facts about the complexity of biological nature. It explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated. The evolutionary p  P rocesses of natural selection and sorting of traits in populations is both a cause and effect of the  of evolution give rise to diversity expressed at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
 * danielkueh (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some of the meaning is lost. The first sentence is transformed into something that I cannot agree with. It has been transformed into the same old nauseating reductionism that keeps getting pushed and it is almost identical to proposals that were put forward last year that lead to a wave of debate. Rather than giving my usual list of citations to reject this, I will just say that it will not hold. "Give rise to" is a weak metaphor, which is why I got rid of it. It is couched in the class of metaphors suggesting that evolution is reaching in an upward direction, when it is not - it is the increase or decrease of some characteristic. I am fine with deleting the second sentence - I thought it was useful as a transition from the process of evolution to the scientific theory, but the third sentence kinda covers this.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, you must be inferring or interpreting the statements in a way that is more than necessary. I and others clearly do not see it that way. I'm interested in what the rest have to say. danielkueh (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "When I was a student, I bought a book that defined evolution as 'a change in the gene frequency of a population'. While evolution does indeed involve changes at the population level, it involves changes at other levels too -- most importantly at the level of the individual organism." Things have been updated in the 21st century, because "...evolution is not so much the outcome of random, stochastic mutation that provides material for natural selection—the neodarwinian picture of evolution—but that it is actually a far more complex process of natural ‘genome engineering’."(quote from here) Book being referenced: Shapiro, J. A. (2012). Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. The kind of evolutionary theory that is being proposed by Danielkueh is not the kind "that can fully connect abiotic and biotic components of ecosystems, through the flow of semantic information encoded in organisms' genes." "Evolution is based on networks of causation and feedback in which organisms drive environmental change and organism-modiﬁed environments subsequently select organisms."Thompsma (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "kind of evolutionary theory" you think I'm "proposing" here. I wasn't even aware that I was. Anyway, the quotes you provided have nothing to do with what I just said as they are completely taken out of context. You are blowing this out of proportion. You talk about all this like we are having some sort of geopolitical battle. All we're doing here is just having a discussion on how best to write the first paragraph! Whatever. I'm no longer interested in continuing this discussion. It's clear to me and perhaps to the everyone else that you're not really interested in making improvements to the first paragraph as much as changing this entire article to suite your own perspective and ideas of evolution. Anyone who disagrees with you will be at the receiving end of an outpouring of insults and irrelevant citations. That's fine. You are free to put up as many proposals as you want. But if the proposals are inconsistent with WP policies, then no one will take them seriously. danielkueh (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Danielkueh...you are getting a bit carried away with the notion that this is a geopolitical battle. If I was interested in getting my own perspectives across, then I wouldn't be quoting published work on the topic. Here is how the quotes are related and the evolutionary theory that you have proposed: Your proposal was: "Evolution is the change in the proportion of inherited traits within a population over successive generations of reproduction." This is pretty much defining evolution as "a change in the gene frequency of a population" (as quoted above). The only substantial difference is that you replace "gene frequencies" with "proportions of traits". This is the standard kind of definition that existed in textbooks for many years, but it is not a current definition that has developed in the more recent literature and it hardly follows that it is an encompassing definition.Thompsma (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fundamental error of mixing bookkeeping and causality that this kind of definition makes. Stephen J. Gould wrote about it here. Of course you have replaced genes with traits, but it is still the same principle. It is equating evolution with nothing more than the jostling of bits, when clearly the most important causal aspects to evolution are much more than this.Thompsma (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replacing 'genes' with 'traits' is perfectly reasonable, because although variation is due to the mutation of genes, the environment works on the traits - and it is the traits themselves which most clearly demonstrate evolution. JohnArmagh (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Going through a list of issues under discussion:
 * Traits seems widely acceptable. I have been a proponent of characteristics because I felt it was a more ordinary word in more types of volcabulary.
 * I am not sure that Daniel's "proportions" is better than JohnArmagh's "frequency". Again, while I promote the idea of finding common words, if we can't find a good one, then we have to pick the next best thing, as long as there is consensus.
 * In Daniel's draft above no distinction is made between evolution itself and the theory of evolution. This article covers both, true, but they are different. Changing the "It" in the new second sentence to "The theory of evolution" would fix it.
 * "a population" in the first sentence should be adjusted to make sure we the definition does not only cover one population.
 * I still would like to propose putting "in biology into the opening". I just propose it. It is not essential, but I do think it helps, and no one seems to have a clear reason not to do it.
 * The theory of avolution is not really only about speciation, but about any change worth noting. Indeed the whole concept of a species, which is an Aristotelian pre-Darwinian word, becomes fluid in modern biology, and not realizing this is something that causes a lot of people to misunderstand evolution. I propose that we can consider using a broad common sense term such as "types of living things".
 * I propose simple removing "as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated" simply because it is something to be handled later.
 * Putting it together, with a bit of tweaking for readability etc:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sheez! It gets going constructive and then collapses. I see both sides. I understand the encyclopedic "simple" perspective and Thompsma's want to modernize it. I remember when I tried to add epigenetic the resistance was similar because the field was too new. Editors argued too new information wasn't acceptable-something like anything less than five years (I found that an odd argument). Now we recognize epigenomes and epimutations but still no evolution. Sad because epigenetics is so important in reproductive biology from the formation of sperm and egg to fusion of zygotes-so definite evodevo significance. If you don't believe it plays a role then you're naive of the literature. Perhaps we should compromise leaving the first sentence, but then qualify it with more modern information. That way we bring the novice upto speed from a Campbell Biology text like definition to a modern one. Since there are two camps take a NPOV and present both. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * GetAgrippa I do not see how this discussion has anything to do with any dilemma concerning "modernizing" the definition? To me this is about clear writing, which does not try to say too much at once it get itself in a knot. I do not see anything in Thompsma's concerns which is more "modern" (or less modern).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I can get behind GetAgrippa's version with one exception: The Theory of evolution. I am not saying that it doesn't exist or that scientists do not make a distinction between the fact and theory of evolution. But it is not a trivial distinction. Many times, when people say "Theory of evolution, they (many of them) usually use it as shorthand for evolution by a specific mechanism such as evolution by natural selection to explain how evolution of so and so might have occurred. Thus, I think introducing the term so early without careful explanation will only serve to confuse and mislead the reader. I agree, we should define it both ways, but we should do so separately and within the main body of this article. Talkorigins has a nice summary of this. danielkueh (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DK, which version are you referring to as GetAgrippa's?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The boxed version. Is that his or is that yours? I'm confused. danielkueh (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to find a simple way to explain what I see is wrong with this. I read a paper by Walter Fitch last night in a paper titled "Evolution is a fact" in an "Evolution Science and Society" book that I have. He is referring to a manifest fact, which is generally frowned upon by the systematic logicians of evolutionary theory. That is besides the point I want to raise. The point Walther Fitch made is that evolution is noncyclic change. This lead definition makes evolution out to be a cyclic thing. It is repeated rounds of statistical change in traits, but this leads us nowhere toward the complexity of life so it can't be evolution. Another point about trait variation being "due to genes" is absolutely false. There is no gene for something. That is a nasty habit that people got into. I'll give an example that Richard Lewontin has used to make this point. We can predict a protein amino acid sequence according to the DNA sequence. Using computer algorithms (e.g., mfold) we can find thermodynamically stable configurations of RNA or protein configurations. However, there are multiple thermodynamically stable types that can be predicted. We cannot predict what the structure of the actual functional protein is going to be. The protein structure is not determined by the genes. The protein folds into its configuration and becomes functional in its environment, but the folded form is not predictable by the DNA sequence nor by thermodynamic stability. Raphael Falk also makes some great arguments on the false allure of genetic essentialism that relates to this cyclic trait evolution that is being proposed. See here for an accessible chapter written by Falk on the organism as the fundamental unit in evolution, which was also the concept championed by Ernst Mayr and is not being represented in this lead sentence proposal.Thompsma (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thompsma. That is a long digression, but it never refers to anything in any drafts being discussed. Where does "cyclic" come into any drafts being discussed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Change is included in the definition - but it is cyclic change that is relevant in evolutionary terms. Read above - it does refer to things that were discussed. For e.g., "variation is due to the mutation of genes" - that is false - the protein variation that we see is not due to the mutation of genes, it is due to the environmental expression - norm of reaction is genes + environment + phenotype in simple terms (This is basic evolutionary stuff - so no citation is necessary). It is this kind of thinking that "variation is due to the mutation of genes" that leads to the kind of reductionistic definitions that are being proposed. I've tried hard to work around this issue by adding extra bits into the definition as a compromise, but then it gets sliced down to the reductionistic view. Here is a link to the book that has Walter Fitch's article see page 22. Here is another quote that may help us and supports the positions I have been forwarding:


 * "Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually, as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology...The other great difficulty about the theory of evolution is that it is what one might call a second-order theory. Second-order, because it is a theory aimed at accounting for a phenomenon that has never been observed, and that will never be observed, namely evolution itself. In the laboratory we are able to set up conditions so that we may be able to isolate mutations of a given bacterial strain, for instance; but to observe a mutation is a very far cry from observing actual evolution. That has never been observed even in its simplest form-the one which is required by the modern theorists to account for evolution, namely the simple differentiation of one species from another." (Monox, 1974 - in Harre (ed.) Problems of Scientific Revolution, OUP).
 * To Danielkueh regarding the theory bit - I suggest you take a look at the updates I have made to evolution as fact and theory. I think we should not be too overly concerned with stating the obvious that evolution is a theory, even if we have creationists equating that with a inferior type of guess. We are not trying to win over the hearts of people, we are trying to present the information so that people interested in the topic will have a reliable source of reference.Thompsma (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I must have messed up his box when I last posted. My apologies. Anyways I think Thompsma has consistently argued against just the reductionist view of evolution -something Stephen Gould has some reknown. And this article has consistently promoted just the reductionist view-at one time the definition was the Dobhzansky shifts in gene alleles in a pop over successive generations. Shifts in gene alleles was a fine definition but with the Junk DNA no longer being junk the notion genes is the answer is naive (we and nematodes have about a similar number of genes)it is the regulation of these genes. Traits are an emergent property of genes and gene networks and regulatory networks that further interact at the level of the epigenome. Most of our traits involve hundreds of genes with large numbers of polymorphisms and the environment does have an influence from studies of monozygotic twins. I just think we need to give equal time to other popular ideas as Thompsma has argued very well with peer-reviewed articles (I use to do that when I first started). However the majority frames is fine by me-that's why I'm so keen on compromise because at least it gets done. Seem s it would follow NPOV. I just don't think evolution is one dimensional. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I digress forgive me-I'm an ole fool. I like the box suggestion but maybe add a mention of "environment" and the process. "In biology, evolution is the change in the frequencies of inherited traits that occurs within populations over successive generations of reproduction within a given environment. The processes of selection (natural and group) and sorting explain these differences in trait frequency. The theory of evolution explains how new types of living things originate and diverge in different places and times. Processes of evolution give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." It adds multilevel selection and recognizes environment in all thia equation. GetAgrippa (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that the environment (taking account of every aspect of it as a whole) constantly changes, negating the "given" aspect. Whether an organism has sufficient traits to cope with the current environment as well as any changes to it, determines whether the organism will prosper or not. JohnArmagh (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with JohnArmagh, and I think the other point is that, as with so many of these issues, whatever rational basis they have they can not all be handled in the first couple of sentences of this very big article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the environment changes or not it isn't neutral-plenty examples of phenotype and environment interplay- temperature, day-light cycle, vernalization, etc. The phenotype is the compass for evolution and genes and environment interplay. The role of genes presented is a too simplestic one. The recent example posted as evolution of fence lizards maintaining juvenile fright and flight response and the length of the their limbs growing too from invasive fire ants interaction poses an interesting question. Are the lizards learning the behavior, and given the time frame of ant introduction has there been enough time for any genetic change-I think doubtful for any genetic change. Further will it lead to speciation-doubtful more character displacement. Examining pit gene and ectodysplasin alleles in stickleback fish are a great examples of allele shifts but is that the norm? But surely predator and environment play a role in these shifts. I agree you can't say everything but a general selecting (leave out specifics) and sorting as thompsma suggested seems helpful. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolution is change in the distribution of inherit traits between generations. Distribution is obviously used in the statistical meaning and this is correct in both sexual or asexual populations. New traits are also a change in distribution since b4 the emergence of the trait it had delta function as distribution.46.239.126.84 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Other pages with evolution
This page was fair about reminding us evolution is a theory but other pages (such as just about any animal pages,) talk about evolution as scientifically proven fact can someone make sure that it is stated as theory in those pages please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.69.133 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. thx1138 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Evolution is a repeatedly-observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory.  The clue is in the name. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have the Phenomenon of (Biological) Evolution, which is the (repeatedly) observed accumulation of (genetic) changes inherited by a daughter generation from its parent generation in a population or group of related populations. You have the Fact of (Biological) Evolution, which states that the Phenomenon of (Biological) Evolution occurs (due to repeated observations of both ongoing and past occurrences).  And you have the (Scientific) Theory of (Biological) Evolution, which explains the mechanics of (Biological) Evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the word theory gets misunderstood because it means different things in differnt contexts. in modern science a theory can literally be something we would stake our lives on. Would you rather fly in a plane built based on theories from physics or based on positions held to be unquestionable by one or another culture?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "theory" is grasped in desperation by those who fail to understand evolution, and the scientific process in general, and can't bear the thought that their Christian creationist brainwashing might be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"can't bear the thought that their Christian creationist brainwashing might be wrong." incorrect,im an athiest its a theory not a law. it does not occur 100% of the time,various studies and experiments show various results.--178.167.194.15 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're a Christian creationist brainwashed atheist? Biological evolution is of course a fact and a constant pressure, as shown by the theory of evolution. Less significantly it can be said to incorporate various scientific laws, but you seem to have been misled about the relationship of law to theory. Possibly by creationists who have long had a malign effect on education in some countries, perhaps you came to your views some other way. What you lack is any reliably sourced proposal for improving the article as required by WP:TALK, so it may be time to hat or archive this thread. . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sex and recombination section
Doesn't recombination includes, in addition to croosing over, the pairing of homologous chromosomes (and the independent assortment)? By the definition in Griffiths' Introduction to Genetic Analysis, chapter 3, recombination is production of new combinations of aleles (which is made by homologous pairing, too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.32.64 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Survival of the fittest article falling into disrepair, needs help
This section in particular is of concern. Can we make a concerted effort to bring the article back to health? Samsara (FA • FP) 00:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Making evolution comprehensible for the layperson
The first section of an article is, or should be, an abstract that summarizes the whole subject AND a brief explanation for non-experts. The first sentences should answer the reader's question--is this what I'm looking for?

Because it's evident that a significant percentage of people don't understand evolution an article in WP ought to clarify it--and I think this can be done successfully.

The first and most obvious place we see evolution is in comparative anatomy. Hundreds of years ago any hunter, however ignorant, could tell the difference between the skeleton of a deer, an elk, a cow or a horse--and a picture is worth a thousand words.

Vertabrates such as fish have a head, spine and ribs--land animals and birds usually add four appendages for locomotion--a comparison between the skeletons of a rearing horse and a human is available (if you want I'll it look up) in one of the museums in New York City--a side view comparison between chimpanzees and humans--D'Arcy Thompson's excellent comparisons of fish in his book On Growth and Form--and skeletons of dinosaurs, which are land animals. You have some of these images farther on in the article following long and complicated explanations. But put pictures of those similarities first and you might get sudden insight in others.--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to your entire post can be found here and it is linked at the top of the main evolution article. Apparently you never noticed that. That article is designed for laypeople who wish to have a basic understanding of evolution. This particular article is meant to be comprehensive and thus detailed like a good encyclopedia article would be. It not meant to give simplified explanations. Also, there is already an image of homologous structures in the adaptation section, which should bring light to the relatedness of those animals. Cadiomals (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality
I know that most scientists believe in evolution, but most of the common people don't. If you look at the page for suggestions for improvement, you'll see that lots of people don't believe that evolution is right. I am not saying that evolution is wrong, but just because most scientists believe in evolution doesn't mean that most common people believe in it. I am disgusted by the lack of neutrality in this article when Wikipedia says that a good article must have a neutral point of view, and this article is classified by one of the best articles out there, yet this says evolution is right, when most people don't say it's right. If you delete this, you are failing to recognize the need for a neutral point of view.McBenjamin (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the FAQs at the top of the page, and to remember that Wikipedia's articles on scientific subjects are sourced by reference to science, not to polls or appeals to popular sentiment.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The common people read on a 7th grade level and think Jersey Shore is good TV. What they "believe" doesn't matter. Scientists know evolution is a fact, because they have plenty of proper evidence, which we repeat in these articles. Giving people who enjoy Honey Boo Boo equal validity with scholars who actually know what they're talking about would not be neutral. Reality is not a democracy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Evolution is not about what scientists believe or what "common people" (whoever they are!) believe. Belief don't enter into it (to paraphrase the dead parrot sketch), and neither is it a matter of anybody's opinion. Scientists conclude that evolution did happen and continues to happen because the results of a huge volume of observational and experimental research provides evidence for evolution as a fundamental biological process. It is a process that transcends our ridiculous belief systems and will continue to happen indefinitely as long as there is life on earth, regardless of whether we are here to observe it happening or not. This article is about the evidential basis for evolution. If you want to discuss what people believe about evolution that's fine but please do it elsewhere. Plantsurfer (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion ought to be ended now because it getting into discussing the actual topic instead of discussing improvements to the article about the topic. Such objections have been brought up by creationists so many times before I'm surprised anyone even replied to this. Remember this is not a forum. Cadiomals (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster
Hi! I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lede is a little certain for science
"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago." This is very likely true from the evidence we have. It's not something that really should be said with such certainty, however. I would just edit it, but someone would probably assume I'm some kind of creationist and revert it. The likelihood of a single common ancestor is high, depending on who you ask, astronomically high, or pretty high, but no scientist would ever claim its certainty in such absolute terms. Regarding the date, our own article on abiogenesis claims somewhere around 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago, so 3.8 also presents a false level of certainty.

Anyway to be very clear, I do not reject the theory of evolutionary origin, I post this from a scientific perspective. Gigs (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence is adquate for the lede; it should be a succinct summary and not be bogged down with hedges against falsifiability (i.e. "...but science can always be wrong"). I think 102860 times more likely is close enough to certainty to state as fact, especially in a summary.  Similarly, "Approximately 3.8 billion years ago" is good enough for a one-sentence summary of abiogenesis--the precise time (and uncertainty) is only tangentially related to this article. Mildly MadTC 18:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note also that it says approximately 3.8 billion years ago. thx1138 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

First Sentence and Dawkins
Richard Dawkins has summed up evolution to just one sentence: "The non-random survival of randomly varying codes." for example

By paraphrasing and getting rid of the word 'change' we can modify the first sentence to a more correct version:

"Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying inheritible characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

I know the first sentence has been discussed before so i havent changed it yet (and maybe never will).-- phazakerley  (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good so far.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know obstinance for details is something the summary should avoid, but what about the fact that sometimes the survival is random? i kan reed (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, survival isnt random. Something only survives because it has an inherited ability to do so.-- phazakerley  (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is randomness in survivability on the individual organismal level, but overall community level the trend is non-random, individuals that survive when looking at the whole community isn't random... — raeky  t  05:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends very much on the size of the population (a key factor in founder effect), and even in very large populations, the effect of "random" survival is not negligible. The problem is with the word "random" here. "Non-gentical" is more appropriate. A better way to put it is that inherited traits are only one of many factors that contribute to survival. In fact, the contribution of incremental changes in inherited traits to survival is small, but very significant when acting in large populations over large intervals of time. What you're trying to get across is that, all other things being equal, some (but not all) changes in inherited traits favor survival. Unfortunately, all other things are far from being equal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead should be neutral, or at least nearly neutral ;-) or more seriously, take that into account. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ikanreed, adaptive evolution involves non-random survivial, but not all evolution is adaptive. Evolutionary changes can occur with random survival. 129.79.223.50 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an added sentence – Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Though molecular evolution is broadly random, at a population level survival is non-random due to natural selection. . . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I personally agree with your sentiment, the supremacy of the neutral theory is not so complete to warrant codification in the lead of the article, IMO. See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00308.x/full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.223.50 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is a metaphysical red herring which has come up before. The distinction between random and non random is meaningless in modern science unless science is understood as teleological. This type of metaphysics comes from Aristotle, who believed that nature had accidents and also other events which were deliberate and aimed at something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." and "The non-random survival of randomly varying codes." are both meaningless tripe. Repeated rounds of either for billions of years cannot and never will explain the diversity of life as any paleontologists, ecologist, or developmental biologist knows all too well (enlightened Richard Lewontin is well aware of this also). Unfortunately, this article will continue to represent the predominant cultural mainstay (i.e., populist American) of evolutionary "theory" rather than what has been stated clearly by a large majority of publishing authors who have not ignored Dawkonian style arguments, contra Dawkin's who has never addressed Gould's case against his conception of evolution. Dawkin's continues to parrot his theory, but he does not address his adversaries counter logic. This is more of the same old Dawkonian codicon replicator theory taken from a classic text written by George Williams in 1966. A wonderfully simple theory, but despite is popularity as a simple "meme" the more difficult to understand "calculus" of such a simple gene replicator does not integrate nor compute into ecosystems of reality. This idea has been rejected in every major scientific review given in the primary scientific literature and in the secondary literature critiquing and deconstructing the popular press books that Dawkin's publishes. From Sewall Wright to Richard Lewontin and Stephen J. Gould, we very well know and have proven that evolution is more than repeated bouts of what is being expressed in the lead (codes randomly replicating - boring, unfortunately simple, and proven false empirically) as though characters bounce about without any ecological or physiological context. Evolution is not synonymous with change either! Evolution is about transformity, stasis, constraint, and at some level change does occur. Evolution is a dynamic and constructive interaction of self-integrating wholes sorting and selecting in ecosystems stretched across space and time. This is the stardust revolution, and life is the progeny of the stars into elements fusing into the molecules as we know it to be. As a modern scientific theory it composes our understanding of such things through the inductive inference emergence. Dawkin's is parroting an antiquating theory of Cartesian reductionism diverting the common reader away by means of a simple meme away from a much more productive theory that is actively alive in the peer-reviewed journals. Emergence as Hempel and Oppenheim (1948) explained long-ago, remains very much an active ingredient in all scientific theories, and especially so in the life sciences. Yet it remains ignored herein. Breaking the theory of evolution down to the sentence given in the lead to this article is an obtuse misrepresentation of what Darwin had to say (talk about killing a hero!!) and what the peer-reviewed scientists have inferred abductively, inductively, deductively, and by test of consilience.64.180.208.17 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The randomness idea is just a statistical twist of induction Ceteris paribus, that the codicon idea lends itself nicely too. However, it is just inductive (i.e., experimenting with sub-samples and conceptually spreading it to the rest of that same class), but it has failed as an abductive, deductive, and by consilience inference according to peer-reviewed tests of the theory. Dawkin's makes the fatal error of applying inductive Ceteris paribus of the codicon (replicating information) to members of another class, namely things other than genes. This breaks with the understanding of credible researchers in other fields (and notable researchers in genetics) who have stated unequivocally that this theory does not hold. Experimentally it has failed, so it is not even a good inductive theory - it works only on paper and in the minds of those who enjoy the simplicity of the concept - a simpliphilia meme or culturgen of sorts. 64.180.208.17 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the first sentence should be left as it is! Silly of me really, there are wordier and better articles available on these issues. I just wanted to get establish the non-teteological aspect of evolution from the very start.-- phazakerley  (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead does say that "Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift", and we do eventually note that "Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete." The teleological aspect is hinted at in the history section, but not brought out: to a large extent the eclipse of Darwinism was due to feelings that purpose or direction were needed, something still true today in theistic evolution. Perhaps too complex an issue to get into much here. . dave souza, talk 08:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Heredity and Epigenetics
I suggest to delete the epigenetics paragraph in the section Heredity or move it to a separate section ("Recent findings have confirmed important examples of heritable changes that cannot be explained by changes to the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA...). This paragraph doesn't explain how epigenetics is relevant to biological evolution. Similarly, the role of "ecological inheritance" in the context of evolution remains unclear. These are fairly esoteric areas, at least in evolutionary biology. I recommend to focus on the core ideas of evolution on this page and relegate such topics to more specialized sections or pages. Finally, the paragraph ends with a sentence on cultural evolution which is not relevant here. Hence I suggest to change the title to "Genetic basis of evolution". Peteruetz (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestions. I invited two other long-time editors, joannamasel and Getagrippa, who have an interest in these topics to this discussion. Hopefully they will respond soon. danielkueh (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the paragraph is fine, it is fairly straightforward and avoids the more esoteric aspects of the topic. If shortening is desired, I would go further, and delete both this paragraph and the preceding paragraph about DNA. That basically removes all discussion of the proximate mechanism of inheritance, on the grounds that knowing the inheritance mechanism was not historically necessary for an overall understanding of evolution, and so is not completely necessary in a general article today. This may, however, cause some consequential problems in removing the definitions of words used later, like "allele", and necessitate further edits. Joannamasel (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Flaw in article found
First why not rename the article to be evolution(observed)

I read the FAQ, specifically this section reproduced for your convenience:

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.

If the article "evolution" only covers observations and facts, then it cannot include theory's, but it repeatedly does. I reproduced a paragraph from the lede again for your convenience. Notice the usage of the word "inferred." Inferrence is part of theory and not fact. From WP:Scientific_theory:

As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

From evolution article:

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're confusing "theory" (which has been enough evidence that scientists assume it's basically true even if we haven't worked out every minor detail), with "hypothesis" (which has not been tested enough to assume anything about). Gravity is a theory.  Theory pretty much means "a fact that we haven't figured out every single detail for but do know is true."  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are forgetting that there is no such thing as a correct or true theory. "Any theory that is currently accepted

and used must be regarded as only plausible, or an approximation, until either it is found to disagree with some observation, old or new, with some experiment or un- til some internal inconsistency is found theoretically." Gravity is not understood;  there are more than minor details to be worked out with gravity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And this article presents the theory of evolution as only plausible, as in, there is no doubt given. "Only plausible" is not meant to be "merely plausible but not proven." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats not what the FAQ says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of the FAQ is that from the standpoint of modern science, there are no absolute facts, and so arguing about the words fact and theory is just a game.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am not being clear enough. The article should not mix fact and theory.  This article should only be observed data.  There can be no theory or inferred facts or inducted facts, only data.  That is the point I am raising, so please only respond to that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are quibbling over meaningless details and inappropriate semantics. The Theory of Evolution describes how and why the Phenomenon of Evolution occurs, and the Wikipedia Article on Evolution (tries to) describe both.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And, there is no basis for saying that any article "should not mix fact and theory". To restrict any science to "only data" would make that science trivial. Theory is the most important feature of science. TomS TDotO (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the FAQ, this article is not about the theory;;this article is about the observed process. Either change the FAQ or your reponse to my question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you appear to be ignoring the fact that the theory of Evolution is used to describe how and why the observed process occurs. If we are not allowed to make use of the theory, then we have no way of describing the observed process.  Having said that, your proposal to exorcise all mention of the theory of Evolution on the basis of your not wanting to mix fact and theory would severely harm the article, turning it into a near-useless trivia list of incomprehensible data.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quacod, this discussion should turn into a discussion about concrete proposals to improve the FAQ or else it should end, because it is otherwise you are turning this talkpage into a sort of internet forum. As far as I can see, there is widespread support for the idea that the terms "theory" and "fact" can have flexible and over-lapping meanings in science, both referring to attempts to describe causality in nature, neither necessarily needing to be seen as saying something about how certain something is. Also, this is what the FAQ is already saying, the way I read it. You seem to be reading it based on your own opinion that what the FAQ is saying can not be what it really intends?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why is there a need for a separate article: Modern evolutionary synthesis ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
Instead of "traits and sequences", (use your control f to find it), it would be more encompassing to say biochemicals and traits. Also in the sentence before, the usage 'biochemical trait' (this phrase is never used) is misused and should be replaced with 'inferred from shared sets of biochemicals.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Differential should be changed to different. --Quacod (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right there. Done. Killer Chihuahua 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua said I need to be more clear about my suggestion. Please change

Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor...

to

Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared DNA sequences or by similar morphological traits and biomolecules. These homologous traits, biomolecules and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor...

"Biochemical and morphological traits" does not make sense because the word trait is not normally used referring to chemicals.

I put the 'DNA sequences' first because I think it is a stronger example.

In the second sentence, I suggest using: These homologous traits, biochemicals, and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ - You are autoconfirmed so you should be able to do the edit. If you wish to leave this open to a discussion removed the template and have this as a discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read that. It doesn't change the fact that evolution is still a theory. There is no justification in stating it as anything else. It must be stated as theory. Even Darwain himself stated " If it were determined that any compled mechanism is found to exist in a cell, then my theory will be falseified. Please concider this as it contradicts any part of the evolution THEORY to be fact.  That is just how it is.  There cannot be contraditions.  That would be lying.  Thank You.  It would be nice to see an error free arcticle about such a sensitive subject that influences the minds of many people.  Thank You

I would delete the few sentences about Aristotle because from as far as I can see, he did not propose the idea that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type. --173.66.184.34 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Or more fully develop in the introduction of Aristotle that he proposed the concept of fixed species in biology of which there was a transition from towards evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.184.34 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aristotle is mentioned because he is compared to those Greek philosophers who believed in fixity of species (which he didn't, what with him saying that living beings were imperfect), and to be mentioned as a foundation to other philosophers who would start evolutionary thinking.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You assume that a perfect species is fixed. Assuredly such a species would fail as soon as the environment changed. Linuxgal (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * John Ray defined species as giving birth to the same species, subject to relatively minor variations – thus inventing fixed species out of piety, and creating a problem for biologists that led to disputes over ideas of transmutation put by Erasmus Darwin, Geoffroy and Grant among others, partly resolved by Charles Darwin. For Ray and most pre-Darwinian British biologists, species were designed to be well adapted to the environment which had been designed for the good of humanity. If only o teach them a Malthusian lesson of hard work..... . dave souza, talk 05:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok those are fine reasons to keep the Aristotle mention. But why arn't animals as perfect as their form is? And what about my suggestion at the top of this section about removing the ambiguous wording: chemical trait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A little ambiguity is ok. It is not just proteins that are shared among different life forms. Different organisms also share similar biochemical pathways and nonmacromolecules such as ATP, NADH, etc. Plus, biochemical traits is a fairly standard term. Do a Google scholar search and will you will see that it is widely used in peer-reviewed journal articles. danielkueh (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that there are more shared molecules than a protein. When why not instead of saying morphological and biochemical traits say morphological traits and biochemical traits and wikilink both to get rid of the ambiguity.--Quacod (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikilink to specific pages is reasonable. Do you have any specific pages in mind? danielkueh (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Other suggestions Jan4
Things to consider adding:

An example of observable evolution: Viruses can be observed to evolve by gaining resistances to antibiotics.
 * Reasonable. Where do you propose putting it? danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph in Outcomes--Quacod (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not natural selection? I'm not sure which subsection of Outcomes works better. danielkueh (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats fine. --Quacod (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, write something up. danielkueh (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the very last paragraph of Natural selection to say "An example of directional evolution is where viruses evolve by gaining resistances to antibiotics."--Quacod (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence needs more work. Antibiotics affect bacteria, not viruses. Do the viruses gain resistance or are there more of them that are resistant over time? And don't you mean "directional selection?" Also, can you type out the secondary source that describes this as a form of directional selection? Be sure to include page numbers. danielkueh (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Replace the introductory sentence of the 9th paragraph with: "Thinkers turned to explaining the mechanisms of reproductive heritability and the origin of new traits. " This better outlines the paragraph for the reader.
 * Weasel words (see WP:Weasel). Plus, it is not clear where you're going with this. danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the weasel word? 'Thinker'? Where I'm going with this is to better outline the paragraph.  Right now, the introductory statement is just a statement of fact and not really a summary of the paragraph. --Quacod (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole sentence. The current first sentence doesn't have to summarize entire paragraph. It just needs to provide context for subsequent sentences to follow. The current one appears to do just that. danielkueh (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree. How can a whole sentence be a weasel word?  Am I giving too much credit to Mendel or/and Darwin?  I know that it doesn't have to summarize the entire paragraph, but its better to give an overview. Isn't this taught is to pupils as good writing.  I want a second opinion.  --Quacod (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)?
 * Because it's like saying "roses are red, violets are blue." Ok, there are thinkers. So what? Who are these thinkers? When did they start explaining the mechanism? Without anything concrete, that sentence sounds more like hearsay and leaves more questions than answers. Not an improvement. As you suggested, I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to chime in on this one. danielkueh (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep thats meant to happen, the introduction pulls the reader in my making them wonder about those facts. Its not hearsay if we have the sources.  --Quacod (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure that it pulls the readers in as much as turn them off. danielkueh (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary neuroscience is in the See also section, so why not include an overview of it in the article: Evolutionary neuroscience studies how the brain of animals have evolved and how studies. Evolutionary metatheory is used to explain facial attractiveness. Source: Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience 2007
 * But the whole point of a "See also" section is so that we don't have include every possible detail into this article. danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine--Quacod (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In the subsection "Origin of life", why not source the Urey-Miller experiment
 * Reasonable. Find a good reference and put up a proposed text for discussion. danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source is ref name="The Cell by Panno" on page 3--Quacod (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that source. You do. Thus, you're gonna have to take the lead and proposed specific sentences to include in this article for discussion. On my end, the other editors (myself included) are just gonna have to assume that you are accurately representing the source. danielkueh (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heres my proof: http://i.imgur.com/USpxD.png
 * Ok, but are you going to write it? danielkueh (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For one thing, there have been numerious times when my source actually contradicts the statement in wikipedia as if the statement in wikipedia is either an oversimplification or outdated, but I have not checked the source given in the WP article. I will start a new section to deal with these occurance.  --Quacod (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ok. danielkueh (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention the effect of geography on evolution. There is a field titled biogeography that studies this.
 * There is a brief mention on the effects of geographical isolation in the speciation section. danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Something I feel like is missing from the article is just a sentence of specifically what causes evolution besides just mentioning extinction, natural selection, speciation. Like what factors on a very low level cause this: Climate change, geography, ecology change, competition for resources... A lot of that can be lumped into natural selection I guess, but its helpful I think to emphasize these factors.  What do you think?
 * I'm not sure. Propose something concrete and specific. That way, we all have something specific to chew on. danielkueh (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about at the end of the sentence in the lede where is mentions extincetion and speciation, say that extinction and speciation which can be caused by geographical factors, competition, climate change, or shifts ecology...--Quacod (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but can you write something that you would like to see added? danielkueh (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Change "Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]"
 * to "Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction which may be caused by poaching, changes in habitat, climate change, competition, geographical factors, changes in resources, pollution, and shifts in environment." Probably want to stay a bit more general to reduce the list: climate, species interaction, human involvement
 * While this site sums it up with climate oscillations and species interactions.
 * Hmmmmm, nah. No need. TMI. Save that for that main text. danielkueh (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

--Quacod (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Add this: Amongst other factors, biodiversity may be caused by climate, species interaction, human involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Two instences of sources contradicting
I have sources, see above discussion that contradicts the WP article's assertion that (1) "The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions." (2) The tree of life can be reconstructed from looking at shared traits between species.

(1) Not necessarily. "Although it is possible for nucleic acids and proteins to self- assemble, it is extremely unlikely that the modern relationship between the three developed spontaneously. " (2) This has not been accomplished and although attempts are currently being made, it is made very difficult because of the interaction between environment and genes among other factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The thing is that scientists can believe 1 and 2 to be investigations that are under way towards being completed, even if you are right that scientists have not yet completed such tasks. So this is not a straightforward contradiction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Name and Sources
Should not the title be "Evolution Theory" or "The Theory of Evolution"? also arn't scientific sources biased on an article such as this? Evolution is the dogma science pushes so sources should be independent of scientists and peer review journals. imho. 82.41.106.20 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is at odds with Wikipedia principles, which give scientific and academic sources primacy. See FAQ #3 for more.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that for 99% of articles on Wikipedia but when discussing the religion of academics, then academics themselves are not reliable sources, it is like a Christian sourcing a Christian to try to prove Christianity for example, sources should be independent of academia, also the article name should change regardless82.41.106.20 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The name won't change: again see #3 above, and articles on Christianity must obviously be sourced to authors on Christian thought and history (who else would one use?!)  Acroterion   (talk)   21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Independant researchers..., Christian (A) says Jesus Existed, Christian (B) Sources Christian (A). Does this mean Jesus existed? the answer is no, and the same is true, Academic (A) says Evolution is true, Academic (B) agrees and publishes an article on the subject which is then sources by wikipedia, does this make it so? again the answer is no... sources independent of this belief system and doctrine are all that are valid, any academic sourcing an academic clearly has a biased viewpoint and is not a reliable source in this instance82.41.106.20 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We go by sources. Sources agree on accepting evolution.  End of discussion.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Go by independent sources, not sources that have chosen to believe in evolution. Your statement that you go by sources and sources agree is rather untrue.82.41.106.20 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources, not some guy's blog or some self published book. Honestly, you should move on now.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to promote something other than a neutral point of view. What you have to remember is that scientists do not have an agenda to anything other than the truth. Evolution is a scientific idea, and so it is appropriate to source it with scientific papers and studies. –  Richard  BB  21:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to promote a neutral point of view, not the reverse, a scientist who believes in evolution is not neutral on the subject, their view is biased by their belief as is their work. dbrodbeck some random guys blog or self published book would be just as unreliable as academia in general when referring to this theory of evolution.82.41.106.20 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Got any sources? If so, I'd be pleased to explain why we can't use them. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, science is a philosophy based on objective thinking and unbiased analysis. Again, you seem to think that science has some sort of agenda (and why would it?). You can't disregard reliable sources just because they're saying something you don't like. –  Richard  BB  22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard I haven't expressed that I dislike the theory, and science is not unbiased and I'm not disregarding reliable sources, I'm simply pointing out that the sources are unreliable when they try to prove something they already believe in which they are, TippyGoomba, no I have no sources to offer :) I'm just pointing out that the sources used are unreliable and biased.82.41.106.20 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No one cares. WP:NOTAFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not using the talkpage as a forum, I'm pointing out errors in the article in the hopes of improving the article, you on the other hand appear to be trolling from the two contributions you have made so far.82.41.106.20 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I lean toward the anon's perspective as to whether this is WP:FORUM material. But I would like to side with everyone else in that the injection of "theory" into the title would be pointlessly wordy and less informative, as the article doesn't just discuss the theory's elements, but also mechanics, applications, and history.  162.111.235.14 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that'll teach me not to log in, looks like I was talking about myself there. The above post was mine  i kan reed (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that the anonymous user is insisting that we put "Theory" into the title of this page because the anonymous user is arguing that this page is unfairly biased towards scientists, unfairly biased against Young Earth Creationists Christians, and that scientists are untrustworthy. In other words, your typical Creationist who can not be bothered to read the boilerplate at the top of this page.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That, and the anonymous editor was making absolutely no suggestions for improvements, spending all its time either ranting about how Evolution is a "dogma science" (sic), or accusing that other editors are evil trolls for not blindly agreeing with its rants.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, at least, can you explain to us the benefits of having Creationists incessantly abuse this talkpage to "argue" for the benefits of rewriting this page with a pro-Young Earth Creationism POV, and disallow all positive references to science and scientists, while deliberately conflating "theory" with "wild mass guessing with no support whatsoever"?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to the edit summary of the collapse; "Troll's Soapbox" sounds wonderfully euphemistic.  Mike  talk 04:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of template
Hello, Someone seems to have vandalised the template at the side ("Part of a series on Evolutionary biology"). It says "animal porn is hot" as one of the headings. When I tried to edit it, it links to Template:Get On My Wang. I don't know how to fix this I'm afraid. --Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 11:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Edited for spelling. --Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've fixed it and warned the vandal. The template is at template:Evolutionary biology. –  Richard  BB  11:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"originated"
Just something to discuss. First sentence of second paragraph in lead: "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago." It occurs to me that this sentence goes just a little bit out of its way for a lead sentence, concerning origins, and secondly that the question of origins of life and evolution are often mixed up by the less well read. We could consider changing to "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago." Might that be more to the point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I have no problems with that suggestion. danielkueh (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like it. thx1138 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, discussion is of course never closed, but 2 votes makes me "bold" enough to put the edit in before retiring for the day.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Worthy NIH Study? => Life Began "10 Billion Years Ago"?
Should the following text/ref (or equivalent?) be included in the Evolution article?  In a National Institutes of Health study, the authors hypothesize that if biological complexity increased exponentially during evolution, life in the universe may have begun "10 billion years ago"< ref name="NIH-20060612"> - more than 5 billion years before the Earth existed. Related text and references may be found HERE - Thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see that this specific speculation is notable enough to be in the lead. It is not even really about evolution per se.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, it reads a bit like a way to shoehorn a reference to life possibly not having begun on Earth into an article that isn't really concerned with that. I'd need to be convinced of the notability of the hypothesis for it to be included anywhere, but here notability isn't the issue - it's just not relevant to evolution. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawn, my feelings exactly. Aside from stylistic concerns, this hypothesis does not appear to be mainstream yet and I wonder if if qualifies as a fringe view. Plus it is primary source, which WP does not encourage. This reverted sentence has also been copied, verbatim, into several other articles (Life, Panspermia, Astrobiology) without much scrutiny. danielkueh (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - the NIH study and related studies (also related, perhaps(?), my NYT comment) seem to be peer-reviewed and worthy to me at the moment - at least as a mention in appropriate articles - or - at the very least - worthy of discussion - re "not relevant to evolution" => seems to presume life began on earth - this may (or may not) be the case - if life began elsewhere - why would evolution no longer be relevant? - I agree, the material may not be "mainstream" at the moment - but then - neither were (as several examples) heliocentrism, continental drift or even evolution itself - at least at one time (and perhaps even currently for some?) - nonetheless, please understand that my position w/ this material is flexible - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce the material of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is highly fringe and WP:PRIMARY, even the reviewers comments are not entirely convinced and some outright say it's flawed. To even CONSIDER adding this you're going to need WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e. academic reviews. — raeky  t  22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - seems present consensus may be that the NIH Study may not be sufficiently settled at the moment to present - at least in the Evolution article - as before, rv/mv/ce the material is *entirely* ok with me - affected articles (mostly ledes) include: Abiogenesis, Astrobiology, Biogenesis, Extraterrestrial life, Life and Panspermia - although the original write-up in the Panspermia article may still be ok I would think - nonetheless (and if interested) several *possibly* relevant references may be as follows:
 * < ref name="SSR-201010">
 * < ref name="SP-20110114">
 * < ref name="TDG-20110131">
 * In any regards - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there was a Science article a few years back looking at tRNA and molecular clock of the genetic code and they found it to be about the same age as the origin of earth-which predates life on earth by fossil record of bacteria. But that influences abiogenesis and isn't related to evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding user feedback requests for simpler information
I see that there's a notice at the top pointing towards Introduction to evolution as a "generally accessible and less technical" introduction to this topic. Would it be prudent to suggest readers also try reading "Simple English" Evolution? E.g., add something like For a simpler version of this page, consider reading in Simple English.

My thought is that the simple English version would satisfy the requests to make this more accessible to children. Havensfire (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a bad idea, but probably this is something not so relevant to this talk page but perhaps to the broader community somewhere: All articles with a simple English version do of course show a link indicating this, but should technical article positively advertise it a bit more? (Perhaps in the way that we advertise that wikisource or wiktionary have relevant materials?) Maybe discuss at WP:VP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest this, but don't know which section of Village Pump to put it in (new to taking a more active role in wikipedia). Should this go to the "Idea Lab?" Havensfire (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2013
Please include Theory of Evolution as the title. Still not proven there is a lot of guess work and assumptions thrown about when evoluitionary scientists speak about the subject.

Mur838 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done. See FAQ #3.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Al-Jahiz and the Arab contribution
My addition of Al-Jahiz in the history of evolution section has been deleted twice now. I was directed to talk about it here.

The first deletion had the reason that quality secondary sources had to be given. I created a new edit with quality secondary sources, and then it was deleted again, this time with no actual reason given.

I note that the Arab contribution has been completely omitted in this article, and my attempts to rectify this are currently being resisted.

Here is my latest addition, which was deleted with no actual reason given.


 * The 9th century Afro-Arab scholar Al-Jahiz, in his "Kitab al-Hayawan" ("The Book of Animals") introduced the idea of food chains and the struggle for existence.

I'm not sure if all the references will show up, so here are the references I provided, without the (ref)(/ref) tags.


 * C. Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species'", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84: 71 (1941).
 * M. Bayrakdar, "Al-Jahiz and the Rise of Biological Evolution", Islamic Quarterly, 21: 149 (1983).
 * F. N. Egerton, "A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 6: Arabic Language Science—Origins and Zoological Writings", Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, April 2002, p. 142.
 * P. S. Agutter and D. N. Wheatley, Thinking About Life: The History and Philosophy of Biology and Other Sciences, p. 42 (Springer, 2008).
 * H. Chaabani, "Insights on the history of Anthropology: its emergence in the wider Middle East before it existed as a discipline", International Journal of Modern Anthropology, 5: 80 (2012).

Here is a partial translation from Al-Jahiz's book of animals, where he talks about food chains and the struggle for existence. (I did not include this in my edit; I just include it here as further illustration of Al-Jahiz's ideas.)

C. Zirkle writes the following in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

"Here Al-Jahiz describes the struggle for existence:

"The rat goes out to look for its food, and is clever in getting it, since it eats all animals inferior to it in strength, such as little animals and small birds, the eggs and the young of the latter, and in general, the vermin which do not live in burrows or whose nests are flush with the earth. In its turn, the rat has to avoid snakes and birds and serpents of prey, who look for it in order to devour it. It must also be skillful in defending itself from the lizard and from the herizo, which are stronger than it is. The lizard is clever in hunting the snake and the fox. The latter in its turn, hunts all animals inferior to it. The mosquitoes go out to look for their food as they know instinctively that blood is the thing which makes them live. As soon as they see the elephant, hippopotamus or any other animal, they know that the skin has been fashioned to serve them as food; and falling on it, they pierce it with their probosces, certain that their thrusts are piercing deep enough and are capable of reaching down to draw the blood. Flies in their turn, although they feed on many and various things, principally hunt the mosquito which is the food which they like best. If it were not for the flies, the hum of mosquitoes during the day would be much greater. The star-lizard and the spider, called ant-lion, go out and hunt flies with the cleverest technique and greatest dexterity. But in addition, flies disappear also through the medium of other causes, for example, they die upon eating in competition over the sweet morsels. All animals, in short, can not exist without food, neither can the hunting animal escape being hunted in his turn. Every weak animal devours those weaker than itself. Strong animals cannot escape being devoured by other animals stronger than they. And in this respect, men do not differ from animals, some with respect to others, although they do not arrive at the same extremes. In short, God has disposed some human beings as a cause of life for others, and likewise, he has disposed the latter as a cause of the death of the former."

(Quoted from C. Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species'", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84: 71 (1941) - this is specifically from p. 85.)

P. S. Agutter and D. N. Wheatley say the following. "In biology, Al-Jahiz (c.781-868) introduced the concept of food chains, which had no known precedent in Greek or Persian thought, and also proposed a scheme of animal evolution that entailed natural selection, environmental determinism and (possibly) the inheritance of acquired characteristics." (Quoted from P. S. Agutter and D. N. Wheatley, Thinking About Life: The History and Philosophy of Biology and Other Sciences, p. 42 (Springer, 2008).)

F. N. Egerton writes the following in the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. "Bayrakdar's case for al-Jahiz being an evolutionist is unconvincing, but his narrower claim that he 'recognized the effect of environmental factors on animal life' (1983:151) seems valid. Apparently, al-Jahiz was the first to discuss food chains, although his details are not always accurate." Egerton then goes on to further quote part of the translation from Zirkle, which I quoted above, then says, "This is the earliest known description of a food chain." (F. N. Egerton, "A History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 6: Arabic Language Science—Origins and Zoological Writings", Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, April 2002, p. 142 - this quote is specifically from p. 143.)

In the International Journal of Modern Anthropology, H. Chaabani writes the following. "In fact the general idea of biological evolution was advanced more than 1,000 years before Darwin by the Iraqi thinker and writer Amr ibn Bahr Al Jahis (800-868)  in his famous work presented in his book "Book of Animals", in which he was the first to discuss food chains, and was an early adherent of environmental determinism, arguing that the environment can determine the physical characteristics of the inhabitants and that the origins of different human skin colours is the result of the environment.   He was also the first to describe the struggle for existence and an early theory of evolution by natural selection and  considered the father of evolutionary theory." (H. Chaabani, "Insights on the history of Anthropology: its emergence in the wider Middle East before it existed as a discipline", International Journal of Modern Anthropology, 5: 80 (2012) - this quote is specifically from p. 84.)

Why the "knee-jerk" reaction and deletion, without any reason given, against the idea of that there were Arab scholars who wrote on related ideas? Why can we accept a Greek and Roman contribution, but then cannot apparently accept that the Arabs wrote on related topics too - despite the scholarly evidence, published in academic journals?

Fariduddien - March 11, 2013.


 * But do any of these citations actually describe evolution? The Greek and Roman contributions we mention describe humans descending from non human ancestors for example, and that is clearly evolution. The idea that people in hot countries are blacker, is extremely ancient, for example found in Herodotus, but not an explanation of evolution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern here is a potential WP:SYNTH issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My sentence only had two components, that of Al-Jahiz mentioning food chains, and mentioning the struggle for existence. It would seem to me that your concern could be allayed by simply having separate references for each concept, rather than putting all the references at the end of the sentence as I did. Would that be correct? - Fariduddien, 11 March 2013
 * The struggle for existence is clearly an important component of Darwin's theory of evolution, and thus I believe Al-Jahiz is relevant.


 * I don't think anyone expects anyone prior to Darwin to have a fully-fledged theory of evolution - certainly the Greeks and Romans did not.


 * My first edit which was deleted also included a brief mention of the writings of Ibn Khaldun (14th century), which includes something closer to what you are asking about (though admittedly I did not provide scholarly references in my initial edit).


 * Here is a quotation from the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun.


 * "It should be known that we - May God guide you and us - notice that this world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless. [...]


 * "One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word 'connection' with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.


 * "The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and to reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends."


 * (From Ibn Khaldun (translated by F. Rosenthal), "The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, Volume 1" (Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 194-195.)


 * One thing I find surprising and remarkable about this quote is that, after talking about "transformation" of lower plants to higher plants, and lower animals to higher animals, Ibn Khaldun proceeds to say, "The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys..."


 * Fariduddien - March 11, 2013
 * The struggle for existence was a common concept among those who believed in creation rather than evolution, in particular the Reverend Thomas Malthus who influenced Darwin directly. The quotes you describe indicate a form of sequential creation, which ain't evolution, so we need a really good secondary source for that extrapolation. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a double standard here. Aristotle did not describe evolution either, yet he is somehow relevant. The reference for Titus Lucretius Carus appears to be a primary source, not a secondary source, yet somehow it seems if the contributor is European, these details can be overlooked. It sounds like the mentions of Aristotle and Titus Lucretius Carus should be deleted from the article, if you held these mentions to the same standards you are holding up mentions of Arab contributions.


 * Malthus is mentioned in the article, though you seem to be arguing against his inclusion. Should he be deleted too, if we are to have consistent standards? Note that Malthus came around 900 years after Al-Jahiz.


 * Regarding Ibn Khaldun, I am still in the process of researching the secondary sources at present (they exist, but of course, it's a matter of tracking down the relevant papers or books and ensuring accuracy). Fariduddien (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a bad point. We could probably give less space to Aristotle and certainly to Plato. But the chief opponents and influences of very important figures like Darwin are obviously hard to avoid mentioning? Darwin was himself influenced by Aristotle, and Aristotle was the originator of some standard anti-evolution arguments which are important to the story. One of the unfortunate notability issues for the great Arab scientists is that their work became marginalized except in the cases where they became popular in Europe. But concerning biology I am not sure that Arab science and philosophy made anywhere near as much progress as it did in areas like maths and astronomy and medicine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like I have to write an essay to get it included, but then it would be rejected for being too long. That's why I only wrote one sentence.


 * According to Bayrakdar (see reference above), Al-Jahiz's Book of Animals was not directly translated into European languages, but he was quoted or had his ideas repeated by other Arab scholars who were translated into European languages. Bayrakdar states the example of the Life of Animals of Al-Damiri, which he says contained many passages from Al-Jahiz's The Book of Animals and which was partially translated into Latin and published in 1617 (Darwin could read Latin). He mentions other examples as well. Fariduddien (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, someone not only needs to write an essay showing the connection to Evolution (not just biology) but it also needs to get published somewhere. That is a basic requirement for something getting into Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew, good point. Please see my comment on this further down the page. Fariduddien (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  The standard is high quality secondary sources covering the whole topic rather than promoting an agenda. As it happens, Aristotle is credited by CD with foreshadowing natural selection, but failing to fully comprehended the evolutionary principle. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you may be disparaging my sources. If there's something you don't like about any of the sources I have listed, please explicitly say why you are opposed to these sources. Four of my five listed sources are academic journals, three of which are science-related. The other source is a book on the history of biology published by a well-respected academic publisher (Springer). Fariduddien (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are industries promoting views that various cultures had various insights, however reliable secondary sources are required to show that material satisfies WP:DUE for an article like this. For an example of such an industry, see http://www.muslimheritage.com/, and for one example of a previous discussion see Talk:Evolution/Archive 54. Johnuniq (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have provided secondary sources for Al-Jahiz, and even provided extensive quotations here on this "Talk" page. Four of my references for Al-Jahiz are from scientific sources (three academic journals, and one book by a respected academic publisher, Springer). The other reference is from an Islam-related refereed academic journal, but I included it because it contains additional English translations from Al-Jahiz which I haven't found elsewhere (though I haven't quoted from it here as of yet, as that one seems to be the least conservative of my references). You are free to look any of these up independently, of course, if you don't trust my quotes. Many of them can be found online in some form (e.g. the Zirkle article is available for free on JSTOR if you register). I am still working on the secondary sources for Ibn Khaldun, which exist, but as I said elsewhere, it takes time to track papers and books down and to ensure accuracy. Fariduddien (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But do any of the sources show evolution being proposed by Al-Jahiz? Please believe me, I am not just asking this question for no reason. It really is relevant, don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew, I think your point (in this comment and in particular in your previous one) is a good one. I've taken a couple days to think about this further, and you're right - while the support is there to a degree in the academic literature (as shown by the sources I listed), it is probably at a stage where further work can be done. This doesn't seem to be an area of high priority for research for experts in the history of science (at least not as of yet), as they seem to prioritize other areas, though I think it is moving forward in small steps. There are also various claims by non-academics, but what I have read of their work usually leaves much to be desired from the viewpoint of objectivity (which is why I haven't referenced any of these websites and articles). Perhaps, as you seem to be suggesting, it is a matter for the research in this area to become better established.


 * I'll just mention that one of my motivations for this is that, as you may (or may not) know, it wasn't that long ago that it was de rigueur for anything in the history of science to jump from the ancient Greeks and possibly Romans straight to Roger Bacon and onwards. The assumption was that the Arabs, Persians, etc., had just "preserved" Greek knowledge without contributing anything to it. That view is becoming less and less common, as the Arab contribution is being more greatly recognized, including in such fundamental areas such as the scientific method (particularly the contribution of Ibn al-Haytham/Alhazen).


 * However, this article in its history section, seems to preserve this "jump" - straight from the Greeks to the European Middle Ages. From what I have seen in other fields, that usually suggests that the Arab contribution is being completely overlooked.


 * The evidence appears to be there that this is so. However, perhaps this is an area in which further research needs to be done (and published in scholarly journals). The evidence of precursors to Darwinian ideas certainly seem to be there (such as in the quotes from Al-Jahiz), and this is recognized in scholarly journals (as referenced above). The weakness in our present state of knowledge may perhaps be knowledge about the "chain of influence" from these Arab scholars (and others) to European scientists, or directly to Darwin himself. The only paper to explicitly address this in my references is the one by Bayrakdar, however, he has a good "plausibility argument" in his paper, but it could be further solidified. I'm sure further research will be done, and published, in future. I'll try to keep an eye on it, and possibly revisit this topic here at some point in the future! Fariduddien (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew Lancaster said, "But do any of the sources show evolution being proposed by Al-Jahiz?" In reply, I'll point out that Bayrakdar provides the following quote from Al-Jahiz in his paper.


 * "People said different things about the existence of al-miskh (= original form of quadrupeds). Some accepted its evolution and said that it gave existence to dog, wolf, fox and their similars. The members of this family came from this form (al-miskh)."


 * This certain sounds like evolution - the idea that an earlier quadruped prototype gave existence to different forms, such as dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.


 * However, having said that, I do think the state of history of science research could use some further advancing in this area, more specifically with researching the specific "chains of influence" from the Arab scholars to European ones. Fariduddien (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it sounds like you see the point that "sounding like" evolution is not enough, because if that was enough then Wikipedia would be more full of people's personal thoughts on things. It will be interesting to see what scholarship comes up with in this area. Obviously accepting early medieval Arab influence in the development of many scientific fields is normal today. (I would say that the big gap in many stories now is the whole Roman period.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions and Suggestion
Question 1: Do I add my bit to the top or the bottom? (Sorry if this is incorrect; I could not tell based on previous posts since there seemed no particular order.)

Question 2: Why when viewing the main page and clicking on the image (under "Part of a series on Evolutionary biology") do I not get a larger image instead of being redirected to some other page that does not contain the image? (i.e., How do I get to the large image so that I can actually see it?)

Suggestion: Improve the clarity of the image referred to in Question 2 above to include a separate link to the "redirect" page as well as a link to the image (or the page where the image can be found). Please make it clear to viewers how to get to where they want to go.

Thanks. Jdevola (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Bottom :)
 * 2) It looks like the image is part of the template: Template:Evolutionary_biology. It looks like there's a Template_talk:Evolutionary_biology at that talk page. I agree, it's very odd. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

De-Extinction video
A TED Talk by Stewart Brand, titled, "The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?" suggests another section should be added to this page, called De-Extinction.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKc9MJDeqj0

66.25.90.158 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Edwin Earl Ross, edearl@satx.rr.com
 * Youtube videos, even if Ted talks, are not reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true, youtube can be a reliable source, but must be used with caution and is usually WP:PRIMARY if anything. There is no policy stating we can't use youtube as a source, it just cautions it's use. — raeky  t  00:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean in this context. Youtube videos are self published, and Ted talks are not really up there with say academic journals and such.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You made it sound like as a blanket policy we don't use youtube, which is demonstrably false. If the scientist is presenting then it would be WP:PRIMARY and would be treated as such. TED talks can be useful in that context. As for including information about "de-extinction" here, it's going to require WP:SECONDARY, I concur. — raeky  t  00:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion and question
Suggestion: Lead: "...and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record." To: "...and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using traits from existing species and those of the fossil record."

Question: If: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Then: "all change is the change of something: change presupposes something that changes. And it presupposes that, while changing, this something must remain the same. We may say that a green leaf changes when it turns brown; but we do not say that the green leaf changes when we substitute for it a brown leaf. It is essential to the idea of change that the thing that changes retains its identity while changing. And yet, it must become something else: it was green, and it becomes brown; it was moist, and it becomes dry; it was hot, and it becomes cold." (Popper, 1958-59, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society) So: If inherited characteristics of biological populations change, such as brown transitioning to blue, how do the populations retain their identity while changing? I think evolution is both the retention of some characteristics and the change of others. If it was just change, then everything would fall apart over successive generations and obviously we still have populations of living fossils that evolved over successive generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.220.238 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Charles Darwin wrote: "Talking of “Natural Selection”, if I had to commence de novo, I would have used " If Darwin were to re-write the origin of species he would have used natural preservation over natural selection. If this twist of history had occurred, would the emphasis still be so high on change? If Darwin perceived preservation to be of such pivotal importance to his theory of evolution, why all the emphasis on change? Evolution is more the preservation of things, which is why Darwin focused on studying principles of heredity later in life. Evolutionary biologists study things that are preserved, i.e., homogenous:
 * "'Structures which are genetically related, in so far as they have a single representative in a common ancestor, may be called homogenous. We may trace an homogeny between them, and speak of one as the homogen of the other...[homoplasy] includes all cases of close resemblance of form which are not traceable to homogeny, all details of agreement not homogenous, in structures which are broadly homogenous, as well as in structure having no genetic affinity' (Lankester, 1870; Annals and Magazine of natural History, 6, 35-43)."
 * This means that evolutionary biologists study evolutionary theory (common ancestry) primarily through reference to homogens (homos=same, gen=kind) to trace lineal relations. Homoplasy is the stuff that changes and too much of it makes evolutionary trees intractable; e.g. "Tests for Excessive Homoplasy (“Saturation”)". Far more traits are preserved than lost in the evolutionary process. Is this change? How are traits inherited (i.e., preserved) in the evolutionary process? By means of natural selection? Watson-Crick base-pairing? Varieties also do not imply change, because varieties may also be preserved (stabilizing selection), which is also part of evolution and has little to do with change. Several neutral varieties of cytochrome b may exist, they are neutral with respect to each other, which is unlike non-coding alleles or synonymous transitions that are neutral with respect to their phenotypic effect.
 * If: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" as stated in the lead, then how do evolutionary biologists account for the homogeny of inherited characterstics of biological populations? They do not reference a causal theory of change - that's for certain. "‘Change’ is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution..." It is the case of close resemblance (where change is not the thing of interest) that captures the imagination of evolutionary biologists and the rest of us. Take a look at our ape ancestors and the first thing you will find at a zoo is people chattering about how closely we resemble them - look at how similar we are!? The evolutionary transition of whales is so fascinating, because you can see the cline of preserved traits amongst fossilized relatives. The evolutionary intuition and fascination is not understood through reference to change, but to the natural preservation of things. This is how Darwin envisioned the theory (in his own words!), since when did it change and by whom?50.98.220.238 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete edits of contributors making a sincere effort on the improvement of this article. Wikipedia is not to be censored. The above posts all provide citable reference material to back up the claims. They do not contest evolution - I am an evolutionary biologist by training. Darwin's concept of natural preservation is well known in the literature. The concept of change by Popper and other evolutionary biologists has been debated for many years in the primary and secondary literature. The post contains reliable information on evolutionary theory - it is not a creationst rambling about the unscientific nature of evolution. STOP THE CENSORSHIP.184.71.102.86 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lankester was referenced above because he was the evolutionary biologist who derived the concept of homoplasy that is used so extensively in phylogenetics. The lead sentence can be literally translated into: "Evolution is homoplasy in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" - because that is what the change refers to if read logically. The logic is inconsistent.184.71.102.86 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your argument but this article isn't about Darwinian evolution nor is there a discussion of his idea of pangenesis and gemmules. We presnt Natural Selection because that is what the literature associates with Darwin's contribution to evolution theory (that and common descent)-not natural preservation. You could argue common descent implies commonalities too. Then discuss the Modern Synthesis. But I agree "change" can be ambiguous. While populations exhibit commonalities you can also argue it is difficult to assign a defintion to a stereotypical species because variation is also just as obvious as commonalities. However I agree a phylogenetic perspective would strengthen this article-I would love for you and Thompsma to write a phylogenetic section for the article where you could address some of your concerns. The lead sentence has always been problematic so it always gathers critiques (I've done the same). Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If this article is not about the theory of evolution that Charles Darwin presented, then what is it about? Last time I checked, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and the process he described for the origin of species has never been falsified. It remains the backbone of modern evolutionary theory. The point is that natural selection and natural preservation are synonyms - that's how Darwin envisioned it. What is being selected is being preserved. The lead sentence into this article is in error. Here is a correct definition: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml - it includes the small scale evolution that this article addresses, but the large scale stuff is missing - which is where we have the preservation.50.98.220.238 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary philosopher - Elliot Sober has suggested that Natural Selection v. Natural Preservation be distinguished as Selection for v. Selection of. See here  for a recent example of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution still accepted into modern literature. This page is worse off than I imagined - people arguing that Charles Darwin's theory is not being presented in an article on evolution!! No wonder the first sentence is in error.50.98.220.238 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The theory of biological evolution by natural selection, as first proposed by Darwin, is the central organizing principle of biology."50.98.220.238 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In case the concept of natural selection is still being misunderstood here (which it is) - let's look at Charles Darwin's words again: "This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection." The lead only covers the rejection of variations, where is the preservation?? The lead sentence talks about inherited chacters as an after thought, so that would be the preserved part, but it says that evolution is only the replacement of them and this is false. Evolution is a creative process and not merely a seive as this lead would have the reader believe. You cannot have evolution the way the lead introduces this topic - whoever wrote that sentence is thinking only in terms of random replacement of characters, but evolutionary biologists since Darwin have always appreciated that characters are inherited for the utility and evolution is the preservation of characters in as much as it is the maleability of them. It is shocking that we are here in the modern world debating on an article on evolution and people are suggesting that we can not refer to Darwin's theory. BTW - I understand that Darwinian evolution is not Darwin's concept of evolution through an odd twist of historical terminology and confusion. Darwin's theory remains the current explanation of evolution with the exception of population genetics, yet the fundamental premises have never changed.184.71.102.86 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Darwin's theory outlined in On the Origin of Species was a good first guess at the mechanisms of evolution, but in the 150 years since, it's evolved into the modern evolutionary synthesis. The term "Darwinian evolution" or Darwinism is a term mostly used now a days by Creationists. The current definition of evolution isn't exactly what Darwin stated, and Darwin wasn't entirely correct in his theories. The lead sentence is in congruence with the most common definitions used within the biological sciences. 150 year old sources are obviously inferior to modern day sources, so if you think you have a specific better wording for the lead then say so with sources, otherwise.... — raeky  t  22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense - you need to get your facts straight. Darwin's theory was not a first "guess" at the mechanisms of evolution!! He had evidence - not a guess!!! Darwin's theory (as I have indicated with modern references above) has been retained and celebrated as one of the greatest triumphs in scientific history. "Darwin wasn't entirely correct in his theories" - please provide a reference where it states that Darwin wasn't entirely correct on his theories in evolution (religious texts are not welcome). I have been teaching on evolution at a university for over ten years and this is news to me. Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection is one of the great scientific theories and it still holds exactly as he described it. Moreover, it was not a guess - he used hypothetico-deductive reasoning (some philosophers have even suggested he invented that kind of reasoning!!). I have given example definitions from other sources that shows that the lead sentence is not in congruence with common definitions. Most standard definitions of evolution integrate the concept of change with preservation (or inheritance) of characters. The current lead definition only deals with the change of inherited characters, which is a logical impossiblity. I have given my explanation using recent and antiquated sources that have been used and cited extensively in modern evolutionary literature (2ndary sources). My use of antiquated sources were used as means of demonstration, as I am a historian and teach on the history of evolutionary science I drew from sources I am familiar with. However, that literature has been utilized by modern evolutionary biologists writing on this topic (e.g.,, [phttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2011.00471.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false], ). This is the most ridiculous discussion I have ever had on evolution. Where have you fairies been? Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection is celebrated as one of the greatest achievements of science and you want to suggest that it wasn't entirely correct? Darwin stated that NS was not the only means by which evolution could proceed, anticipating elements of the modern synthesis. Moreover, components the modern synthesis (not so modern) has been brought into doubt, vindicating some of the elements that Darwin originally proposed. Waste of time. Tried to help - but with fairies like this contributing into wikipedia, we end up with this kind of disaster.184.71.102.86 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacking other editors will get you nowhere (calling people 'fairies' for instance). Do you have a suggestion for an improvement?  Your credentials are unimportant, arguments from authority do nothing here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." is the basic definition, more or less, that is taught in biology classes. There's more detailed criteria that is required for evolution to work (like (1) more offspring then can survive (2) variation between offspring and (3) differences are heritable, which is in paragraph 3). We're not sure what exactly your proposal is to change this. There has been extensive (please view archives) discussion about this first sentence, and this is the sentence we've arrived at through MAAAAANY MAAANNY discussions. I'd prefer it to say "Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a breeding population over successive generations." But "allele frequencies" is generally too technical of a term for a general purpose encyclopedia's audience. So, first, I suggest you dig through the archives over the past year or two and see all the discussions about this paragraph and sentence, and the reasoning's for it, and then propose a change that you think can gain WP:CONSENSUS and that is backed up by reliable sources. KKTHX. — raeky  t  23:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When I am entering into a debate on evolution with people who want to say that Charles Darwin's theory was just a guess, then calling those editors fairies is a legitimate inference. What other inference is there? Only fairies would spin myth of that kind. I would like to discuss with serious editors only please.
 * I am not really interested in wasting my time in here and I am not really inclined to read on a "lesson" on evolution from those who make extraordinary claims that we cannot enter into a discussion on a modern article on evolution by reference to Darwin. Although, the three part definition on natural selection that raeky provides above actually proves Darwin's point on evolution (that was Darwin who came up with that btw) and also shows the flaw in the current lead sentence. Notice that Darwin's theory of NS as raeky listed (without knowing that it came straight from Darwin) includes inheritance. The current lead says that evolution is the change in inherited characters, which falsely implies that evolution only deals with the change and has nothing to do with the preservation of characters. Why do finches have beaks? Because, evolutionary mechanisms have selected for those kinds of characteristics that are imprinted into the heritable toolkit (i.e., genes + development) according to past success. If we go according to the current lead sentence - the fact that finches have beaks cannot be explained by evolution, because evolution (according to the current definition) will only explain how new kinds of beaks come about, but not tell us anything about why current beaks are in existence. This runs contrary to any standard definition that I have come across in my many years of teaching evolutionary biology. I felt forced to express my credentials, because it seems that the editorial fairies spinning myth into evolution are not reading the posted citations or are incapable of reading and understanding the material. Reason is required beyond parroting statements from texts, otherwise the meaning will get lost in translation.50.98.220.238 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Evolution is the biological process of inheritance and change in the characteristics of individuals in populations over successive generations." The other problem with the current definition is that population ecologists will tell you that populations have characteristics. Density, natality, mortality, age distribution, r- and K- selected growth forms are characteristics of the population not of the individuals in the group. So the current definition of the lead conflates individuals with populations, which is confusing and leads to the kind of error in reasoning that we are seeing here.50.98.220.238 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF before you do any more posting here. Personal attacks are really frowned upon here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks were made - just rational inferences. I am asking for feedback from serious editors to discuss on the concept of evolution. I do not want to waste my time on editors who want to suggest that Charles Darwin's theory was just a guess. This is an article on evolution. Besides, fairies are wonderful mythical beings - the problem is that they are mythical, this is a science article. I would kindly request that mythical fairy editors spend their time elsewhere, because this is an article on a serious scientific topic. Ironic that I'm being linked to an article on "Faith" - assume good faith! There is no faith in science - it is based on reason. Once again, the proposal to fix the error in the lead is:

"Evolution is the biological process of inheritance and change in the characteristics of individuals in populations over successive generations." 50.98.220.238 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying experienced editors, who have been contributing for a long time, are not serious, that is not assuming good faith. WP:AGF is very important, it is a fundamental behavioural principle here.  Learn how it works around here, or, really, back away.  This is not about faith as in religion, read the damned link, it is important.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously Darwin didn't have the complete picture, he didn't know of genetics, he didn't know of many of the things we take for granted now in biological sciences. His picture of evolution, although a great model, and building foundation for modern understanding is not the complete picture. He wasn't 100% accurate in all his definitions and assumptions. Adding "biological process" isn't probably a bad idea, a tad redundant but probably wouldn't hurt. But your other definition I don't think is the best definition of evolution. Crack open some of the modern day text books and look at their definition of evolution. The lead sentence we have now isn't some quickly thrown together without source thing, it's a collaboration, something we've fought about and discussed word by word for a long time now. You've proposed a change, now back it up with reliable modern sources that use that definition. — raeky  t  01:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a few recent discussions about the lead:
 * Talk:Evolution/Archive_64
 * Talk:Evolution/Archive_64
 * Talk:Evolution/Archive_63
 * Talk:Evolution/Archive_62
 * That's just a couple pages, if you go through the 61 other pages, You'll see quite a bit more. — raeky  t  01:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Raeky and Dbrodbeck, you two realize that the anonymous IP (50.98.220.238) user is just Thompsma right? danielkueh (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK? — raeky  t  02:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good policy question. Dunno. danielkueh (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe WP:CLEANSTART, but not going about it the right way I think. — raeky  t  02:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Apteva (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Evolution → biological evolution – '''This article is just about one type of evolution. There are many kinds of evolution e.g. stellar evolution. This article should be at biological evolution and the evolution article should be about evolution in general.''' Voortle (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose in popular parlance evolution means evolution by natural selection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. As I stated above, biological evolution is more specific. There are many types of evolution. Voortle (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I believe that the concern is valid and there are some create confusions, whereby certain valid and notable forms of the word evolution are "hidden" on Wikipedia, as if they did not exist, and so I find the proposal not unreasonable. But it is true that the dominant meaning is the biological one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dbrodeck. This is the reason why have this disambiguation page. Biological evolution is by far the most common use of the term "evolution", and so it is fitting that this article should remain as such, as per WP:NAME and WP:UCN. If someone wants to find their way to stellar evolution, the disambiguation page at the top does it for them. –  Richard  BB  13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dbrodeck and Richard BB.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose All these distictions in evolution type are mostly a creationist bullcrap, like the criminal Kent Hovind. Popular usage is clear. — raeky  t  14:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with creationism. Biological evolution is just one type of evolution. There are others. Voortle (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds a lot like: http://www.creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/ — raeky  t  20:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be true that there are other types of evolution, i.e., stellar evolution, evolute coiling, etc, but, the thing is, whenever an English speaker today mentions "evolution" without any specifiers or qualifiers, they inevitably are talking about biological evolution, so moving the page to "biological evolution" is unnecessary.  As was mentioned earlier, if someone wants to learn/read about other forms of evolution on Wikipedia, they can always go to the disambiguation page.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Without a qualifier, "evolution" most commonly refers to what this article describes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems to describe this situation. Without a good reason to change, let it alone. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Evolution, in the sense of natural selection, is the most commonly used meaning of the term, so I see no reason to change or qualify it. Mathsci (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the biological sense of this word is by far its most common meaning. --John (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is it April 1 already? For anyone seriously wondering about this, evolution as described in this article is the primary topic, and all other "X evolution" topics are derived by analogy or misunderstanding from this primary term. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The term "biological evolution" is not in general usage. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per all opposition above. LCS check (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME.--Charles (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the generalized concept of "evolution" should have an article at the simple location, which can overview how more specific versions work. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – A generalized concept article about "evolution" would be a disambiguation page at best or an ambiguous article at worst. As others have noted, common parlance dictates what this article should be about.  Although I am *not* suggesting that the person who proposed this is up to mischief, but this can too easily be a way for creationists to hide this material from children searching to learn more about it.  At present, if kids search "evolution" they will learn about biological evolution, the topic about which they likely want learn.  If a general "evolution" article is put here instead, or even a disambiguation page, then they must sort out for themselves what it is that all the fuss is about and may not even discover this material due to frustration. –  Maky  « talk » 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:PTOPIC. Reatlas  (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose while there are other uses of the term this one is far and away the most promonant use of it.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point. It is possible that there are somewhere, like maybe in works on philosophy, good, reasonable articles on the concept of "evolution" in general. Maybe. I ain't seen them yet, though. Having gone through some reference sources in other fields, like religion, it does seem that even there biological evolution is regarded as the primary topic, and at this point I don't see reason for us not to do so as well. If such an article on the general concept of "evolution" is both created and reasonably well deals with the concept of evolution in the broad sense, then maybe a move might be called for. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question about "Myths" reference
I was just curious about the wording of part of the section on "Social and Cultural Responses", which says:

"...there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their religions and who raise various objections to evolution."

The creationists referenced in this sentence do not consider their beliefs as "myths", so it seems odd to use this wording in this context. I understand that the consensus is that those beliefs are "myths", but in the context of that sentence, it sounds as if this is saying that the creationists themselves believe they are "myths", which is obviously not the case. Adding to this problem is the fact that this sentence has three references, none of which (from my cursory look) make mention of "myths".

Couldn't this reference to "myths" be changed to something that fits better with the context of what is being discussed? For example, it would make more sense, in context, if these "beliefs" were referred to as "creation accounts", which is more neutral, thus satisfying the context. Thanks for any feedback. --Louisstar (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Perhaps creation narrative would be a more appropriate term? Reatlas  (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Christians, or people from Christian cultures, wanting Christianity treated differently from the way we would treat other religions not so common in America. (Think maybe Hinduism?) When I see this, I'm sad for Wikipedia, and for those of a Christian background who are so insecure in their faith that they need Wikipedia to tell them it's OK. Please treat the Christian myths the same as we would treat any other. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, as I am not christian and I don't live in America and only you have mentioned either in this discussion so far. I agree with Louisstar's point that the use of the term creation myths might imply that creationists also think their stories are myths. Do you have a reason to oppose his suggestion? Reatlas  (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for a change. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest checking in the archives of this talkpages, because this has come up before, and old discussions will show some of the common positions people have. I do not personally have a strong position. I can see how "myth" might sound emotive to some, but on the other hand I do not think it really is emotive, and also "narrative" sounds pretty weasely to me. "Stories"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew (& HiLo48), well, I think "myths" is twice as weasely as "narrative", since a "narrative" can be true or false, whereas a myth is always viewed as false. I'm fine with "stories", though. Can we agree to change it to "stories", just to satisfy the context and the intent of the sentence, and the fact that the cited references do not say "myths"? Thanks. --Louisstar (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Myth" doesn't always mean "false". thx1138 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of a true myth? --Louisstar (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you offer any evidence that this particular myth is true? — raeky  t  07:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Louisstar: The Biblical creation myth is a good example. If you were to consult with contemporary Catholic theologians, you would find that few, of any, would have any problem characterizing it as a myth, none would consider it scientifically or historically accurate, or even plausible, and all would consider very, very true. In fact, they would state that it is one of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Something can be religiously true, in universe, without having to be scientifically or historically true, or in any other sense out of universe. Only certain Protestants see an insurmountable contradiction here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dominus Vobisdu Well, if that's the consensus among religious writings, then that's fine, then I have no problem with the wording. The problem here is the fact that it's stated within the context of giving the viewpoint of creationists, thus implying that the majority of creationists (religious or not) refer to these stories as "myths". This hasn't been established by the sources cited, so why is the term used in that context? I was bold and I edited the article to instead read "traditions", because I think this satisfies the context. So @Raeky reverted the edit, saying "This is a science article, so proper academic terms should be used." So what he's saying is that referring to a myth as a "tradition" is not academic, even if you're giving the viewpoint of a creationist, and even if none of the cited sources say anything about "myths" in that context. I guess I'm thoroughly confused. Or else something else is going on.--Louisstar (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the consensus among "religious writings", by which you mean theological scholarship. You appear to be confusing "giving the viewpoint of creationists" with "giving the viewpoint of creationists using the tone of a creationist narrative". We don't pretend we believe in fan death when we describe people who believe in this particular bit of nonsense. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As an academic science article, and being an academic encyclopedia we describe the origins as told by Genesis as mythology. Popular opinion is irrelevant, and in the academic religious studies it's described as a myth. Myth doesn't mean false or fake in the academic definition, so even if you believe in these stories describing it as a mythology in an academic publication isn't generally a problem. It's people outside of academia that seem to get held up on the alternative definitions of the term. Also there appears to be a STRONG wp:consensus for describing this as myth, and not changing it to appease people who haven't intellectually progressed past the bronze age. — raeky  t  03:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Louisstar: I think I see where you are getting confused. Correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be assuming that, when we describe the positions of creationists, we are obligated to do so using their own jargon or idiom. No, we are not. Quite the opposite. Second, you say that "traditions" is a better word than "myths". I don't agree at all. In my experience with scholarly religious literature, "tradition" and "scripture" are very distinct and are even contrasted. As a matter of fact, I would consider fundamentalist Christianity as a "traditionless" movement, as they have rejected the authority of tradition in the sense that I am familiar with. That is what "sola scriptura" and "sensus plenior" is all about. You seem to be using a non-scholarly, definition of "tradition" here, one which is fine for everyday life, but potentially confusing, if not totally wrong, in scholarly theological discourse. See, for example, chapter 3 of Charles C. Ryrie's "Basic Theology", for a mainstream explanation. Hope that helps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Creation Myth is a term with meaning, referring to story-based cultural explanations of the origins of things. The fact that Christian creationism is one such myth isn't particularly relevant.  i kan reed (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A myth is much more than mere narrative, the problem modern creationists have is that they want their myths to be literal, discarding much of the meaning. . . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's semantics. "Creation Myth" is a complete term in and of itself.  It refers to a wide collection of things that aren't true, that are almost exclusively narrative in nature.  i kan reed (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not semantics, theology. The anti-evolution creationists hold to a literal reading, in contrast to the majority of Christians who have always held that scripture is more than a literal narrative. . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the line quoted by the OP:

"...there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their religions and who raise various objections to evolution."

I've been reading a fair bit of creationist literature recently, and my impression is that this isn't it at all - they don't feel that religion contradicts evolution, but that evolution undermines religion. They believe some truly strange things, like that the earth is at the centre of the universe (not all of them believe that of course, but it's out there), and of course that al living things were created at the same instant on the sixth day (except fish and birds, who got in a day earlier). And the reason they believe this is not because the bible says so, but because the bible puts man at the centre of God's concern - all that creation going on in Genesis is preparation for the death and resurrection of Jesus (on their reading of the bible), and if you take creation out, then there's no room for that central place of man as the peak and centre of God's activity. Anyway, I think the sentence is incorrect, and it really needs a good source - try the books by Ronald Numbers, for a start. PiCo (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point, the issue isn't the word myth, but the development of a creationist belief that the teaching of evolution must be opposed for moral reasons. Ron Numbers will have described that somewhere. . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term "myth" to describe a belief should be substantiated by citation. Creationism, according to the dictionary, and in fact according to this very encyclopedia is defined as doctrine, or belief, but not as myth. Even if a solid case exists to define creationism as myth, use of a nonstandard definition injects an unnecessary hint of bias to the wording of that sentence. Perhaps "doctrine" or "teachings" would be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschwartz7 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding genome database tool to lead
To Paragraph 2, line 3: "These homologous traits and sequences are *more similar* among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record." Add link to genome database tool where DNA similarities can be viewed on "more similar", http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTrackUi?db=hg19&g=cons46way (Select desired species then "submit" button). Or add a link to this tool in the external links section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splicevariant (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for change in second paragraph: include abiogenesis
original version: A. Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

improvement: B. Life on Earth originated through the abiogenesis of a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

The reason for the change is that the latter places evolution into a larger context, which is. It involves "originated", which invokes the idea of sudden change, but this would seem to conform to the science on abiogenesis. I suspect that some will be opposed to the idea of putting evol Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I'll assume that you're a nice guy, and that I can trust your opinion on this. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did life did originate from a common ancestor? Yes. But to claim that the last common ancestor resulted from abiogenesis? Not so sure about that. Do you have a source? danielkueh (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * More accurately, do you have a source that's not WP:FRINGE that life didn't arise here on earth, but was (only other plausible possibility) alien in origin? Pretty sure panspermia theories are very much fringe. — raeky  t  16:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;" . . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the article on abiogenesis, you will see that panspermia theories form part of the more general concept of abiogenesis. (Edit: This seems to be wrong, it is only the abiogenesis article that brings up these issues. On the other hand, that article does treat panspermia as a fringe theory) I think it is correct to more clearly put evolution into its scientific context, i.e. inform that the, I'd almost say discipline, of abiogenesis deals with the temporal precursor of evolution that seems logically connected to the biological and molecular world of evolution. The problem with the article as it stands is that it seems to inappropriately indicate that science [Edit: knowledge may be a better term] stops at the universal common ancestor. Of course, that is a very pleasant thought, but it ain't true. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposed edit makes the sentence longer and harder to work out for readers. There is enough confusion between evolution and abiogenesis, and a lead should be straightforward for a reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, one could claim that confusion merits clarification, that massive confusion merits massive clarification, and that any confusion should be met head-on. However, an avoidance of confusing matters is, as you point out, a strategy which may lead to more straightforwardness; it does, however, seem somewhat obtuse. Agreeable or clear? From the agreeableness page:
 * "Agreeableness is considered to be a superordinate trait, meaning that it is a grouping of personality sub-traits that cluster together statistically. The lower-level traits, or facets, grouped under agreeableness are: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness."

Edit request on 29 April 2013
Hello I have some technology and i like to study evolution do you think I could edit this section I want to part in another part about the lichens evolving into newer species about 35-37 million years ago. Some say it is 50 million, but fossil record proves it is around 35-37. Thanks!

Tthunder123 (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we see your source?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This cannot be edited without a reliable source. - Camyoung54   talk  01:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was my change reverted?
I made an edit that changed the following statement

"Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago." to "Life on Earth has been evolving from a universal common ancestor since approximately 3.8 billion years ago."

Both statements are true. The second statement however clears up an ambiguity in the previous statement.

Danielkueh reverted my change for no reason other than that the first statement wasn't false. Is not removing ambiguity a reasonable reason for an edit? Scott1328 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, life now is pretty far afield from life billions of years ago. I imagine that is why.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I don't really see a huge difference between the two either. The reverter's edit summery is a bit confusing as all. Maybe we can get some clarification please.-- JOJ Hutton  17:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the second statement is an improvement. If anything, it introduces more ambiguity. Reading it at first glance, it is as if we are all prokaryotes still evolving from the original ancestor. As Dbrodbeck said, "life now is pretty far afield from life billions of years ago." The original sentence works. danielkueh (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On a discussion forum that regularly combats creationist wibble, this came up as an inaccuracy in the Wikipedia article because the use of the preterite tense in the original statement implies that the evolving was completed in the past i.e. 3.8 billion years ago. Furthermore, I noticed that nowhere in the first couple paragraphs does the article explicitly state that life has always evolved and continues to evolve to this day. I thought my edit would succinctly state this, although my wording may need some tuning. How about: "Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor since approximately 3.8 billion years ago, and the processes that drive evolution continue to this day"?Scott1328 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But doesn't the second paragraph state that? Especially the last sentence, "Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]"? danielkueh (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to me Scott1328 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Scott has a point. One way of reading the sentence in question is that ALL evolution happened 3.8 million years ago. I know it's not the intended meaning, and I know it's not true, but my English teachers all those decades ago would have taken marks off for that. It's poor English. How about...
 * "Life on Earth began evolving from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago"? HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * agree with Scott1328. It should be clearly and explicitly stated that life continues to evolve, has always evolved, will continue to evolve indefinitely, that it was not a one-off primordial event. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking another look at the two sentences and after reading Scotts explanation, it seems that the second sentence is less ambiguous so I have to agree with Scott on this one. Its really about tense and semantics. On another note, I have to remind Scott that many different types of people edit Wikipedia and referring to creationism as "wibble" (whatever that means, but it sounds negative) is probably not the best way to present your augment, even if quoting from another website. Its not going to convince many people to your cause if you are closed minded to other ideas.-- JOJ Hutton  19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is for a change, then I would prefer something as follows:
 * Life on Earth continues to evolve from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.
 * danielkueh (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Still prefer:
 * Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor since approximately 3.8 billion years ago, and the processes that drive evolution continue to this day
 * Note: I did not call creationism "wibble" (which means "Meaningless or content-free chatter in a discussion") I said that the site that was discussing this topic frequently combats creationist wibble (meaning wibble from creationists). Subtle distinction.
 * Scott1328 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is unnecessarily wordy and redundant. It needs to be simple and straightforward. danielkueh (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Life began to evolve approximately 3.8 billion years ago from a universal common ancestor and is still evolving today. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What this does not say is that the universal common ancestor must also be presumed to have evolved from a simpler form, and that it may have been only one of a number of life-forms in existence at that time.Plantsurfer (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Plantsurfer, I like the suggestion. But can we find a better substitute for "today"? danielkueh (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess today is actually redundant - the sense of the sentence remains intact if the word is removed. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. danielkueh (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I felt it was a bit clunky. I changed it to ''All life on earth can be traced back to a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. '' Does that address everything? (If not, please revert!) TippyGoomba (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * TippyGomba, I prefer the term "evolve" or "descended" to "trace back", only because they are less ambiguous and helped the sentence transition better to the next one, which discusses rounds of speciation, etc. So I tweaked that sentence a little bit. danielkueh (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Further clarification
As I indicated above, there is the issue of precedence of that universal common ancestor - it had to have evolved in its own right. There is also the possibility that prior to 3.8Ga there were many other lineages of organisms with (and also possibly without) a yet earlier common ancestor. Some of these may conceivably have survived for a time beyond 3.8 Ga, but since none have given rise to descendents that survive to the present we have no way to tell. All modern life appears to have the same common ancestor. Should the word modern be added to the sentence? It is used in the diagram to its right. Is there any need to deal with the other issues I raise? Plantsurfer (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion would be to just change "universal common ancestor" to "last universal ancestor," which would be consistent with the main page of the same title. danielkueh (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * AgreedPlantsurfer (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is a weakness of the article that having stated that modern life arose from a universal common ancestor, an idea that is the bedrock of modern biology, no indication is given of the nature of the evidence for that.Plantsurfer (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. I think that lays it out pretty decisively but I'm a non-expert. What kind of evidence did you have in mind? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Specific examples rather than bland generalisations. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And "morphological traits". Seriously?? Exactly what morphological traits of the last common ancestor do we know about that were shared by Tyrannosaurus rex. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to Title Change
This comment is bias. Can we change the title to the Theory of Evolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGH7401 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your bias is noted, but I disagree with your proposal. This is about the evidence as well as the theory explaining the evidence.dave souza, talk 20:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read Evolution as theory and fact, and please be aware that the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the page only, and are not forum threads to discuss your misconceptions about science.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For any religious individual who comes along and fails to read the FAQ items at the Talk: above, the extant article covers evolution and covers the various closely-related theories which describes evolution. Evolution is both a directly-observed fact as well as a series of closely-related throwies which describes the modes and methods of the observed fact. That's why the title is accurate. Damotclese (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

History section addition
Hey I was just wondering if this article could give a little credit to the age of the Abbasid caliphate. In the history section it jumps from about 200 BC right to Darwin. I have a little section I'd like to add from the Abbasid thinker Al-Jahiz who in his 'Book of Animals' states "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring." . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.14.168 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 June 2013‎
 * That indicates an idea of transformism, indicating Lamarckian transmutation rather than Darwinian natural selection from variations. In these newspaper articles Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics and public engagement in science, is speculating that versions of this "al-Jahith's Book of Animals was a major influence on Arab scholars of the 11th to 14th centuries, and the Latin translations of their work in turn became known to Charles Darwin's predecessors, Linnaeus, Buffon and Lamarck." He's clearly trying to boost the reputation of Muslim science, but has this been shown by historians to have significance in the overall history of evolutionary science? Maybe something for the more detailed history article. . dave souza, talk 07:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that quote is likely a fabrication actually. Arabic speakers on the Al-Jahiz page couldn't seem to find that quote anywhere in a PDF of the book.  The only place I can find that quote is on websites touting Islmaic influence on science and they're also filled with a lot of misinformation.  Is there not a scholarly English translation of this book anywhere?  That would help obviously Capeo (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it up independently of what's happening here, but I see others are talking about it as well. The quote seems to be everywhere, and could track it in newspapers (e.g. here) and in books (e.g. here). I'd be curious to see where exactly the fabrication story came from?
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Revelant discussion here:Talk:Al-Jahiz, sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15. I'm inclined to agree that the quote is not an accurate translation. For one, it is framed far too neatly both in language and in structure in terms of the modern theory. I watched Al-Khalili's BBC series about Arabic science, with a pretty open mind at the beginning. His patent aggrandizements and overstretching really turned me off fast, though, and by the end I was just plain disgusted. It had the same queazy feeling as I did while watching the final scene of Boogie nights (I'm a star! I'm a star!). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm..I am now curious what it actually says. Does anyone have a link to the PDF, either in Arabic or English?
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 06:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NVM, I think I found a scanned version of the source. Now to the hunt for the original passage. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, zeroed in what I think is relevant (here). Anyone more proficient in 8th century Arabic that can help with page 23, mid-page where he starts talking about "المَسْخ"? To me, it reads as though he is talking about how "bad air, bad water" and the environment gradually change people. He also seems to be comparing people to apes, but can anyone else please take a look at this? Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 07:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not our job. Instead, we examine what reliable secondary sources say, discounting those sources which are not suitable for the task. In this case, a source acknowledged as authoritative on the history of biological science would be required. It is clear that there were many outstanding writers from the centuries before the scientific explosion of the 1800s, but it is very unproductive to pore over ancient works from a modern perspective, while looking for text hinting at foresight. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We would not be able to use the quote anyway, as that would be OR using primary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's what I'm struggling with. We seem to have a preponderance of evidence to support the quote (plenty of 2ary sources). The only problems brought up against including it are people trying to locate it in the primary source or feel the quote is not an accurate translation. Both of these things are blatant OR, if you ask me.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you intend pursuing the idea of mentioning Al-Jahiz in this article, please respond to my comment just above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I don't care either way. But after all the work hunting the quote down, I'd definitely love for something -anything- to be included. This something can be including the quote or negating its existence, or doubting it, or generally anything. The way I see it including anything supporting or denying this can be helpful to future editors as others might try to include/delete information on this particular issue in the future.
 * One observation of interest: this quote is victim to two very strange bedfellows: (very) religious muslims who don't believe in evolution and wouldn't want one of their star scientists talking about it(s foundations), and people who generally like to diminish medieval muslim contributions. Editors who are not prejudiced by either and would just want to include the truth whatever it might be, like you, Dominus Vobisdu and others, would be caught in the middle.
 * I really have no solutions or sources to contribute now, nor do I suggest including the quote. I just see a problem and think there must be a better way.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 06:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's clearly been campaigning to exaggerate the role of medieval muslims, so we have to be very cautious about giving it undue weight in this overview article. It would be good to have high quality scholarship on this issue, as muslim scholars clearly did play a part in early science more generally. . . dave souza, talk 07:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Dave, I would insist on very high quality scholarly sources. Islamic boosterism has been a huge problem here in WP in the past. Like I said, I would be very wary of using sources like Al-Khalili. First of all, he's a physicist, and not a historian. Second of all, he has a very strong bias that is not widely shared by scholars from outside of the Muslim community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)