Talk:Evolution/Archive 66

"A theory of Evolution" vs "The Theory of Evolution"
the implies that there was a single model, when there wasn' there were multiple theories of evolution at the time. Also it wasn't charles darwin's theroy alone since it was published with Wallace. So the use of the is both incorrect in its decription and ascription. X-mass (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The desire to use the label 'the' only makes political sense. It implies greater certainty and in a context where Evolution is constanty under attack by various groups (typically religious) the need to label "a theory" as "the theory" to make it sound stronger is helps in that fight. The practice of science is often a political fight between multiple schools of thought, both within and without a particular paradigm. But the scientific methord demands a much stronger criteria, that we recognise the lack of absolute certainty, that our knowlege and explantions evolve and thus we as scientists attempt to replace one faulty theory with one even more subtly wrong. X-mass (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There are groups that are certain that they are correct and often this is religious groups. The know 'the truth', because it is written in their 'book' supposedly by the 'hand of god' opperting through the writer. The use of 'the' in relation 'theory of Evolution' implies an equal truth - one that science cannot make and is counterproductive to try X-mass (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Evolution by natural selection. That is The model. By analogy, you may have a Volkswagen Golf with any of a range of different backs and engines, but you can still refer to Volkswagen Golf as The model. Samsara 09:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Odd because I drive a passat and I can't order parts for The Passat, I have to specify in huge range of detail which passat i mean, even if I say its a 2003 B5.5 or Mk4 passat, they still ask for far more details. When people ask me what car I drive i don't say I drive "the passat" just as I don't say "the volkswagen". I suppose you could say I was one of The English, but people would still ask do you mean they speak english, are from England, and when you say England do you mean England itself of are you actually meaning britain or the UK. 82.6.186.222 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Charles Darwin did not invent The theory of evolution by natural selection. Charles Darwin co-published with Wallace: A theory of natural selection, and the popularised that theory. There were theorys of evolution by natural selection prior to darwin, but they didn't have an explanation for the mechanism, even Darwin changed his mechanism, he thought it could be analysed via Eugenics. I recognise that people do't know the history and thus are just hear-saying what they have been told, but again that's the politics around the issue - to say it charles darwins theory is The Theory is ahistorical and simply wrong! The reality is that Darwin/wallace theory was wrong when they proposed it and it still is wrong now. However evolutionary theory itself has evolved into a tool that can has much better predictive value. 82.6.186.222 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * :) I'm rather familiar with the several authors that preceded Darwin, and their not receiving much attention had nothing to do with the mechanism but rather with their position in society. Samsara 19:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is talking about THE theory of evolution by natural selection, then charles darwin/allfred wallace's was one of the intial theories about the theory of evolution by natural selection. And to say that what i write is not accepted by the consensus is a broken argument. If the view of the consensus is always right then there is a larger consensus that says that evolution by natural selection is through the hand of god, so perhaps you belive we should be reflecting that consensus of belief? No, nor do I! The Darwin/wallace theory of Evolution was supported by the church because it kept in the possibility of creation by god, it didn't challenge the orthodoxy that the church taught.X-mass (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So far I have seen no cogent analysis supporting the view that it charles darwin alone and in whole who invented the theory of evolution natural selection without recourse to any earlier thinking. I suspect that everything I change will be delted not because what i write is wrong but because its challenges the beliefs system of the writers, who hold to the idea that charles darwin invented evolution as strongly as the christians who think everything was designed by an invisble sky parent and that cannot be challenged. X-mass (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Moxy (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First, yes, this is about "the theory of evolution of by natural selection", not "a theory of evolution of by natural selection", analogous to "the theory of relativity" as opposed to "a theory of relativity". Wikipedia is not about original research or our opinions, but rather reliable published sources, which generally refer to "the theory of evolution", not "a theory of evolution".  Second, we could consider including a slightly more detailed summary that mentions Alfred Russel Wallace in the lede.  In the main article we have the following text, which describes how Darwin spent many years formulating the theory; Darwin was prompted to publish based on contact by Wallace; Darwin and Wallace presented separate papers in 1858; and Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859:
 * Darwin developed his theory of "natural selection" from 1838 onwards and was writing up his "big book" on the subject when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a similar theory in 1858. Both men presented their separate papers to the Linnean Society of London. At the end of 1859, Darwin's publication of his "abstract" as On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and in a way that led to an increasingly wide acceptance of concepts of evolution.


 * Third, X-mass thank you for your interest; reverting your edits was not personal; please assume good faith; and please feel free to propose specific changes here on the discussion page. Let's not get bogged down in side issues. TheProfessor (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No seriously no worries - none of this is personal - we as a group are striving to represent our current understanding as clearly as possible, however it is the nature of science that ideas are contested and in the history of science all the more so. thank you for taking the time! X-mass (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Jahiz bit removed
I've removed the added bit:
 * Some have described Kitāb al-Hayawān by al-Jahiz to had made observations that described evolution.[23]

as weasely and poorly sourced - source was a radio show transcript on intellegent design. However, the poster didn't link to the transcript. The transcript is interesting - and perhaps useful, but not just for that some described... bit w/out more context. Vsmith (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you change the first line to being "The theory of evolution is..."?
I think this change should be made because, by definition, that is exactly what evolution is. Also, this headline would be more accommodating to Creationists and less of something that could be interpreted as saying that "evolution is a law of science". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Pokémon Fan (talk • contribs)


 * We should not be making changes to this article in order to "accomodate creationists", per our sources. Also, see scientific theory and Evolution as theory and fact.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * However, too often "facts" are picked and chosen from multiple facts proving otherwise. For example, Ernst Haeckel's drawings on the early stages of mammalian embryos are seen in most high school textbooks today and are a "major" connection between embryology and evolution.  However, the earliest stages of embryotic development in mammals look very different and later stages of embryotic development look very different.  Haeckel obviously fudged his drawings and even well-known evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould denounces them, yet they are still found today as one of your "facts".  This may sound like a very hostile approach, but please, give me some facts I cannot denounce and I will leave. Thank you. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like creationist misinformation – what's your source for the claim that "Ernst Haeckel's drawings on the early stages of mammalian embryos are seen in most high school textbooks today"? . . dave souza, talk 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, it is Evolution News, which I'm assuming doesn't contain "creationist misinformation". The Pokémon Fan (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Evolutionnews.org is a creationist organization. Yes, they like to disguise their literature to make it seem more legitimate. No, they are not representative of the scientific community.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What evidence have you that prove it to be a creationist organization? The Pokémon Fan (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They plug intelligent design, and cite the New World Encyclopedia (a front for the Unification Church, AKA the Moonies). Evolutionnews.org is also headed by the "Discovery Institute," which is a politico-religious organization dishonestly masquerading as a scientific one. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can also see it in the domain registration. ldvhl (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The "controversy" of these drawings is discussed here: Embryo_drawing . CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Haeckel's drawings would be forgotten if it weren't for the insistence of creationists and physicists on bringing them up again and again. It is irrelevant to this article however or the issue at hand.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Physicists??? Plant surfer 21:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Read this and be prepared to be baffled by the ignorance of physicists.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I will discuss this on a different page. I didn't read the top. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep. You may also appreciate Objections to evolution. Best of luck.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition to lede sentence
I suggest adding "consequently all life on earth" to the lede sentence. This is quite important as to what evolution implicates but not so clear from the jargon. Smk65536 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How should the sentence then read, exactly? -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Inspector General   ‖ 16:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this: "Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, at the level of molecular evolution, and consequently all life on earth.". Smk65536 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW - the original text seems better imo atm - although the following *may* be a possibility => "Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity to all life on earth; at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species and individual organisms." - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede - new content about evolutionary history of life
Most of recent additions to the lede (second paragraph) belong in the main body of the article, probably under "Evolutionary history of life", with only a summary in the lede. The lede is becoming long and disjointed from the rest of the article. TheProfessor (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - seems the second paragraph (copied below) in the lede helps present a relevant and significant (and well-sourced) introduction to the Evolution article and, imo atm, blends *very well* with the rest of the lede - comments by other editors welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean Eon. There are microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia. Other early physical evidence of a biogenic substance is graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland. More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.


 * Yes, looks like suitable text for the main body of the article. TheProfessor (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede of a Wikipedia article serves as an introduction and to summarize the content of the article (WP:Lede). There is a tendency to add content to the lede that is not supported in the body of the article, as is the case for these recent additions.    Drbogdan or others, could you help remedy this, by adding this first to the body, and then reworking the lede?  I favor a shorter lede, with careful thought about what key points should be covered.  Note that citations should be body text, and are not necessary in the lede, except for cases such as controversy or quoted passages.  Also note this non-correspondence with the body is an issue in other parts of the lede, and needs cleaning up.  Further, various important aspects of the body are not summarized in the lede.  I'm advocating for a shorter, better written lede that follows WP:MOS.  Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As suggested, the text/refs has been added to the body of the article - ie, "Evolutionary history of life/Origin of life" section - at least for starters - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drbogdan for helping to place this content in the body. In terms of the new body text, the flow could be improved with a clear outline of the section, better integration with existing text, topic sentences, and attention to flow, such that each sentence better follows into the next sentence or ties back to the previous sentence.  As it stands, the new lede text is identical to the new body text, and it does not follow a parallel outline to the body with weighting of topics in proportion to importance. TheProfessor (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - seems like a good idea - perhaps posting a draft (that includes your suggested improvements) here for review by others may be helpful? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's a draft second paragraph of lede (combined 2nd and 3rd paragraphs):
 * After formation of Earth about 4.54 billion years ago, life originated (abiogenesis; panspermia) through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago. Repeated formation of new species (speciation), change within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth can be inferred from shared sets of morphological and biochemical traits, including shared DNA sequences. These shared traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct a biological "tree of life" based on evolutionary relationships (phylogenetics), using both existing species and fossils. The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenic graphite, to microbial mat fossils, to fossilized multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and extinction. More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates of Earth's current species range from 10-14 million, of which about 1.2 million (14%) have been documented.
 * TheProfessor (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thank you for the draft - draft seems good to me atm - updated lede with the new draft (and related relevant refs) - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - Thanks again for the draft - and - Enjoy! Drbogdan (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See also?
It appears that only WP pages are in the see also section. Is it acceptable to include something (important?) that would be an external "see also" Like This          Agent of the nine (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Other article links are what the see also section is for. There's also a further reading section, which that link would belong in (though it's best to actually cite material from the further reading sections and move them to citations). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus
This page used to say: "Biological Evolution is the most empirically tested theory in the history of science". is now replaced with: "There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories in science"

why the change? I want to ask permission to change the current with the former statement.Agent of the nine (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If it ever said that I guess it won't have been for long? Your preferred wording is not wrong according to me, but it sounds like a sound bite from a debate whereas we aim to use an encyclopedic style. It sounds like it is answering an accusation, right? But then we should mention things like debates in specialized sections. Also we would need to find a very good source for any kind of really strong "secondary" judgement about a whole field like this, or else it looks like we are trying to promote one opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

sigh, your point is valid. My bias wanted the former statement as it is very profound and a very large claim. The source for the current statement is a very good one. If I find an "epic" source for the former claim that I desire I shall return. Agent of the nine (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the source, I would favor something like this: "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences, but also from anthropology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences. Understanding of evolution has made significant contributions to human, including preventing and treating human disease, new agricultural products, industrial innovations, and rapid advances in life sciences." TheProfessor (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the changes you suggested and also included evolutionary computation hyperlinked as "computer science". Thank you for all the help and input and I am most pleased we could reach an agreement. I think it is important to emphasize how biological evolution has so broadly effected other fields of knowledge. Agent of the nine (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Very long sentence which goes off into all kinds of directions? Why needed? For example why mention astrophysics? And if the aim is to mention as many disciplines as possible should we go for 20 or 30? Not sure why this is an aim though. It once again looks to me like trying to insert an answer to a debate which is happening somewhere else. Probably it is a very good answer, but is it suitable here? Remember that we do not "prove" things here but only cite by using reliable sources, which may or may not provide proofs or evidence. But we also do not generally reproduce all that here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input andrew. Based on the reference mentioned in this talk section it seems an appropriate addition. (you don't have to read too far into the reference material). The aim is not to mention as many disciplines as possible. The aim is to express (based on the reference) how biological evolution has contributed so largely to science as a whole. That is why so many disciplines are mentioned. 20 - 30 would be overkill and detract from the point. (plus i dont think 20 - 30 disciplines are mentioned in that reference) I'm having a hard time seeing how it still seems to be "answering a debate". Do you want it removed? or changed somewhat?Agent of the nine (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

atrophysics and biological evolution Agent of the nine (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Evolution of a primitive eye
Something that may eventually be worth incorporating into the article: there is some fantastic research in this Nature paper, reported on here and here on the evolution of an "eye" (an "eye-like ocelloid") in single-celled organisms, including tracking down the origin of each of the components of the system.

Citation:



-- The Anome (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this would fit better into Evolution of the eye. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Life originated through common descent"
Hi everyone. This phrase sounds to me like common descent was the mechanism of how life originated, rather than a description of what happened afterwards; is there a better way this could be written? I've been trying to figure out a way to do it while still keeping the term "common descent" in the sentence but haven't been able to think of anything yet. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be "the diversity of life originated through common descent"--Mr Fink (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the new wording is accurate. :-) I'd have preferred to retain the reference to abiogenesis as part of the historical context, though I don't feel strongly about it. Sunrise (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr. Fink. It should read "diversity", and it would conflate issues-the origin of life and evolution. Abiogenesis is just one published theory of the origin of life (so Neutrality shouldn't let that one idea dominate), and generally it is agreed that all present life evolved from the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The current wording ("The current diversity of life has arisen by common descent from a last universal ancestor") remains quite awkward. First and most importantly, common descent implies a common ancestor, so the phrase "common descent" is just redundant. Second, there's something a bit odd about using an indefinite article to refer to the single common ancestor. Finally, "arose" would be preferable to "has arisen". So how about something like the following?


 * The current diversity of life on earth does not reflect multiple origins, but rather common descent from an ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.


 * I think that keeps everything in without the same sort of redundancy, flows a lot better, and makes clear the point that's being made about common descent. Alternatively, if people are happy to drop the phrase "common ancestor", which isn't doing anything but provide a link to that article, we could have: "The current diversity of life on earth arose from a single ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago" (we could even link "arose from a single ancestor" to common descent, though it doesn't follow WP:LINKCLARITY quite as well). Garik (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) revised by Garik (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the following would be preferable to the shorter (and probably the longer) version I suggested above: "All of life on earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago." Garik (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Gene flow
The current form of the article has two sections named "Gene flow", one under Variation and one under Mechanisms. Should one of these be renamed slightly? (Yes, but how?) - dcljr (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

FA
Due to the obvious controversy of this topic; why is this a 'featured article'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.162.181 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it quite excellently covers the topic, hopefully educating the scientifically ignorant. --Neil N  talk to me 16:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ,ec>Because controversy is no bar to featured status. Also, please stop removing things from articles like "20 million years ago."  Acroterion   (talk)   17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Sentence
Currently there is a sentence in the article that reads:  The first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "transmutation" theory of 1809[37] which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by use or disuse in parents -- This sentence is problematic because 1) the phrase "forms of life that developed... and that on a local level... " does not clearly indicate the meaning intended by the author,  2) the phrase "caused by use or disuse in parents" does not clearly indicate what is or is not used, and 3) I suspect that the "which envisaged" phrase should be a comma which, but it does not seem to modify the word 1809.  Since I do not understand the meaning of this sentence, I cannot correct it. Please advise. Peru Serv (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I worked on this sentence a little. I also found it a little hard to understand. Here is the sentence now. It's from Evolution:


 * The first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "transmutation" theory of 1809,[37] which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and postulated that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by their use or disuse in parents.


 * The phrase "in parallel lineages" in particular interrupts the flow of the sentence, and it has the potential to mystify general readers. I'm wondering whether it could be left out at this point and explained later in the article. If it must be here,


 * (a) Could it be moved to right after "envisaged spontaneous generation"? or


 * (b) Could it be linked to an article or section of an article that would explain it?


 * Also, the phrase "on a local level" is the type of phrase that is understood by evolutionary scientists and biologists but not readily understood by the average reader. Does the phrase have to be there, or could it be left out? If it has to be there, perhaps another, clearer phrase could be substituted.


 * Finally, in the phrase "by inheriting changes caused by their use or disuse in parents" is, of course, one of the main elements in evolutionary theory, but by itself, this phrase does not explain much to the average reader. I'm wondering whether it could be re-worded to show a little better what actually happens, that the inheritance of a characteristic by offspring depends directly on whether the characteristic is used or not used by the offspring's parents. (Do I have that right?)


 * If these things are clarified a bit, and the sentence is not made wordier than it already is, I think the sentence as a whole will be clearer. Corinne (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "parallel lineages"" an elegant and simple idea should baffle anyone. We don't dumb down when it comes to maths articles so we shouldnt with biology either. Is a characteristic dependent on its "use" by parents. Sounds a new concept to me and would need some solid sourcing. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Evolution has many definitions
It should be specified that in common parlance AND scientific journals the word 'evolution' is shorthand for the THEORY of evolution. Evolution is not really ' the change in alleles'. This was stated in better previous versions of this article. I don't know why it has deteriorated so much. John.r.r (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See Q3 of the FAQ at the top of the page. While you are at it, read the other questions there as well, it will certainly be useful. --McSly (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK I will read q3. It it OK with you what apo said to me below??? John.r.r (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , please get to your point instead of wasting everyone's time with your ignorance of Evolution (disambiguation) and refusal to read the talkpage Frequently Asked Questions.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr Fink Is it not against the rules to personally attack editors??? John.r.r (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a personal attack: please be aware that there is a difference between a personal attack and demanding that you get to whatever point you think you're trying to make, and stop wasting people's time with your inane chatter. You're the one violating rules by repeatedly abusing and misusing the talkpages as though they were forum threads. So, please get to your point if you are capable of doing so, or I will close this thread as per WP:SOAPBOX.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

McSly, I read Q3 and it really does not pertain to what I am saying. The article at the start should be clear that the word evolution is MOST often used to mean the theory. Rarely is it used to mean 'alleles over time' To put that first is misleading and deceptive. Previous better versions did not make that mistake. Can you tell me where those WP rules are located like WP:NPV etc??? John.r.r (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * == NOT using it as a forum! ==

Simply want many parts of this article to return to the way it was years ago. And many others feel the same way. How can consensus develop to change it if you stamp out all those who want to change it?????? Not very democratic. Very dictatorial!

By stamping out discussion you are turning evolution into a pseudoscience:

Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims. John.r.r (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one abusing the talkpage as a forum thread, and hypocritically, whenever I ask that you get to your point, you then falsely accuse me of making a personal attack simply because I didn't kiss your ass.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * John, it's simple. Suggest the exact changes you want us to consider, cites with appropriate WP:RS, and we can move forward.  Otherwise, you're just wasting everybody's time. ldvhl (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2015
This sentence is awkward because it lacks parallel construction:

Understanding of evolution has made significant contributions to humanity, including preventing and treating human disease, new agricultural products, industrial innovations, a subfield of computer science and rapid advances in life sciences.[21][22][23]

Here's a suggested modification:

Understanding evolution has advanced humanity. It has led to innovation in fields such as healthcare, agriculture, computer science and life sciences.[21][22][23]

12.238.88.5 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a slightly smaller revision to get the phrases lined up. —Torchiest talkedits 02:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Variation
in the sentence "A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes" what does 'their' refer to? I would suggest replacing this sentence with something along the lines of "A substantial part of the phenotypic variation in a population is caused by genotypic variation". 129.127.101.245 (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Their" refers to the phenotypes. The sentence is clear, direct and easy to understand. Proposed construction is clumsy. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  11:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * phenotyes don't have genotypes. individuals have genotypes and phenotypes. What is clumsy about the proposed construction? I would posit that the current construction is clumsy. The proposed construction replaces 'variation in phenotypes in a population' with 'phenotypic variation' -- clearly less convoluted and 'clumsy', and in the proposed construction there is also no ambiguity about what 'their' refers to (phenotypes don't have genotypes so the current construction doesn't even make sense).129.127.101.245 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems there are no further objections, so I will go ahead and ask for the proposed change to be made.129.127.101.245 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

lead sentence
"Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

"over successive generations" is not necessary. Heritable traits of biological populations change within generations, e.g. when an individual dies -- this is still evolution. Not to mention, a generation is extremely difficult to define in most cases. "Change" already implies an element of time.

It may also be helpful to define heritable traits in brackets based on the most common definitions and in line with the terminology used in definitions for natural selection and genetic drift (two important evolutionary forces). E.g. heritable traits (alleles, phenotypes)129.127.101.245 (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems there are no objections, so I will go ahead and ask for the proposed change to be made.129.127.101.245 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015
please change "A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes." to "A substantial part of the phenotypic variation in a population is caused by genotypic variation." The current construction is clumsy. The proposed construction replaces 'variation in phenotypes in a population' with 'phenotypic variation' -- clearly less convoluted, and in the proposed construction there is also no ambiguity about what 'their' refers to (phenotypes don't have genotypes so the current construction doesn't make sense).

129.127.101.245 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅, though I didn't include the wikilinks as those terms are linked earlier. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015
please change the lead sentence "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." to "Evolution is change in the heritable traits (alelles, phenotypes) of biological populations." "over successive generations" is not necessary. Heritable traits of biological populations change within generations, e.g. when an individual dies -- this is still evolution. Not to mention, a generation is extremely difficult to define in most cases. "Change" already implies an element of time. It may also be helpful to define heritable traits in brackets based on the most common definitions and in line with the terminology used in definitions for natural selection and genetic drift (two important evolutionary forces). E.g. heritable traits (alleles, phenotypes)

129.127.101.245 (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll await a second opinion on this one. I don't like "heritable traits (alleles, phenotypes)", as that wording could be misunderstood to imply "alleles" is a synonym of "traits".  It's no true that "change" implies time; for example, the diameter of that tree trunk changes from 2 m at ground level to 1 m higher up.  But I take your point about "generations" being unnecessary, and think "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations time" would be an improvement.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence is fine and very descriptive-individuals don't evolve-populations do and over successive generations (population genetics). Successive generations refers to asexual reproduction and "sex" which is instrumental in evolution (Mendelian inheritance and recombination and the expression and distribution of traits within a population)), and implied that different proportions of a trait will be expressed over generations in a specific pattern (in equilibrium) unless random mutation or outside forces-natural selection, drift, gene flow, etc. alter that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium to produce an evolutionary change. A successive generation will be a different time interval for any given species so "time" really isn't the info we want to express but reproduction and offspring of a "successive generation". Even if an individual expressed a novel mutation and trait if they don't reproduce no evolution has occurred. Then too fruit flies resistance to synthetic pesticides is from a transposon mutation that occurred some 30,000 years ago (that isn't evolution), but not until recent times has evolution taken place with the advent of synthetic pesticides such the mutation found a function in resistance to the pesticide and then through successive generations that evolution has taken place such a change has occurred in the population that now high numbers express this new novel trait because of selective pressure from synthetic pesticides. .  Now 80% of the world's fruit flies express this mutation from natural selection acting on the cryptic jumping gene and trait that floated around the population for thousands of years until now and evolution produced a change in the population that now high numbers of the population expresses this novel new trait. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: After checking the wiktionary entry and a few other dictionaries , I would say that the wording is fine. Inomyabcs (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Adrian J. I agree with you that having "heritable traits (alleles, phenotypes)" is not a good idea, and I also see your point re: change and time. I agree that "time" is a good replacement for "generations".
 * @ GetAgrippa I disagree. As I mentioned, heritable traits of biological populations change within generations, e.g. when an individual dies -- this *is* evolution; it changes the frequency of traits in the population. Also, in your fruit fly example, when the mutation occurred, that *is* evolution (it sounds like you're confusing evolution and natural selection here). Using "generations" is too restrictive; yes, it implies reproduction, which plays an important role in evolution, but it also excludes a bunch of things like mutation (the only source of new variation) and death (integral in both drift and selection). Having "heritable traits" should be enough to imply inheritance and therefore reproduction. Not to mention, "generation" has a very ambiguous definition (actually many) and in most cases cannot be defined for a population, which poses problems if evolution occurs at the population-level. On the other hand, time is inclusive of all processes. 129.127.101.245 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Once consensus is reached, any autoconfirmed editor can edit the article, or the request can be reopened if needed. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree I think you are confusing molecular evolution with biological evolution. Molecular evolution took place with the mutation but the actual biological evolution didn't occur till pesticides were an environmental agent of natural selection-a process of biological evolution. The mutation had no trait (not every mutation is meaningful nor is evolution-mutation isn't evolution) till it jumped into a position to alter a cytochrome P450 gene =the emergent property of the gene interactions is the trait-resistance to pesticides that then natural selection acted on to alter the distribution in the population through successive generations. Individual alway die within a population-that is a given-but it may not change the distribution of traits within the population so no it doesn't equate to evolution always. If the death of individuals randomly or selectively alters the traits of the population so it is no longer in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium then you have evolution. . Death of individuals is a given it doesn't necessarily change the distribution of traits within a population for that generation. Death is due to any number of factors such as chaotic events such as is genetic drift, natural selection of  individuals that survive so others die, or a neighboring population migrated in and killed all but a few individuals-gene flow (then too if the two population hybridize more gene flow.  Then  too those that survive have to reproduce so if only a fraction of individuals reproduce then that will alter the distribution of traits of the population.  The population is considered individuals that survive to reproduce-hence fitness. You can predict the distribution of genotypes and phenotypes/traits of a breeding population under the assumptions of Hardy-Weinberg. Anything that alters that equilibrium is Evolution. So the death of individuals randomly in genetic drift will alter it, or selectively with natural selection such certain ones more likely to die will alter it, or say a neighboring population migrates in and kills all but a few individual so gene flow that alter the equilibrium and traits of the population then too hybridization between population can occurs so more gene flow. Then too as you mentioned a random mutation can alter the populations trait too but only if the individual with the mutation reproduces to pass on the trait=a single individual with a trait that isn't propagated isn't evolution Sexual recombination acts generationally to create new combinations of alleles within a population too. It isn't the time that is important more so than generational change-descent with modification. Without "successive generations" you leave out descent which is more important than time. You seem to equate death to evolution which is like equating extinction to evolution both play a role in evolution but aren't evolution. Wikipedia defines Generation as" the act of producing offspring. In kinship terminology, it is a structural term designating the parent-child relationship. It is also known as biogenesis, reproduction, or procreation in the biological sciences." So Evolution is the change in traits of a population through successive generations. How are the traits changed=through successive generations or reproduction=descent with modification. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a better example-take the Linski longterm E. Coli experiment following the evolution of a cloned bacteria. If you take the first generation of bacteria and froze them in storage-they are alive but aren't evolving because they aren't reproducing-time can continue ad infinitum. Only with successive generations does evolution take place and the time interval per generation may be different as it evolves so time isn't important.  The bacteria is a great example too as the citrate trait that evolved did so with multiple mutations and multiple steps but not every mutation was significant. It is generation-reproduction that is most important not time.  GetAgrippa (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * wow, are you trying to bury this under a wall of text? You've hardly addressed any of the points I made, and when you've attempted, you've failed.
 * first, I'll address some of the points you made:
 * The bacteria example really doesn't support your point (but then no example will, because your point is flawed). Nowhere in the proposed definition (using 'time' instead of 'generations') does it state that time is all that is required for evolution -- it is change in heritable traits of biological populations over time; therefore, change in heritable traits is also required. The proposed definition is perfectly applicable to that scenario.
 * "and the time interval per generation may be different as it evolves so time isn't important" -- this doesn't make sense. Time is clearly important -- can you have generations without time? You're argument seems to be assuming that 'time' should be interpreted as some arbitrarily set time span, whereas the proposed definition doesn't state a set time span, just time. It is broad and as such allows flexibility, and it's not meaningless because it is in the context of the rest of the definition.
 * "The mutation had no trait [snip] till it jumped into a position to alter a cytochrome P450 gene" -- well that's just another mutation.
 * "You seem to equate death to evolution" -- no. nowhere have I said death = evolution.
 * Horizontal gene transfer also puts a hole in your argument. This can transfer traits without reproduction. Just another process on top of mutation and death that can change heritable traits of biological populations without needing reproduction. Remember that I'm not arguing that reproduction isn't important in evolution, just that the current definition excludes all the processes of evolution that operate within generations, whereas the proposed definition will be inclusive of all processes. Let me try to highlight my point with a hypothetical example -- if there was a population that had very neat generation times of, let's say 2 years, and you study the traits in the population in one year and find 12 individuals have big ears and 8 have small ears (it's not a big population, and let's assume that ear size is a heritable trait). You return the next year before breeding (i.e. same generation) and you find that there are now 8 individuals with big ears and 8 individuals with small ears. Would you conclude that evolution hasn't occurred? By the current definition, you'd have to, but does that really make sense? What purpose does an arbitrary line on what change is considered to be evolution or not serve?
 * Successive generations doesn't negate HGT??? I think you are conflating ideas. Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. How the heritable traits change is by numerous mechanism-that is explained in text. Because life is a continuum of life reproducing life it is in successive generations we see the changes. The change maybe a new mutation, maybe drift, selection, gene flow-which includes HGT, etc. Simple definition that is common to other sources. 75.76.251.115 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Now I'll reiterate some of my main points so they're not lost under this wall of text:
 * Using "generations" is too restrictive; it excludes a bunch of things like mutation (the only source of new variation) and death (integral in both drift and selection). The use of 'heritable' in the definition implies heredity -- (according to wikipedia) the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another -- so the importance of reproduction is still accounted for if 'generations' is changed to 'time'.
 * That makes no sense-generations doesn't exclude anything just conveys the heritable traits change through generations. How does "time" capture all you state? GetAgrippa (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And again, "generation" has a very ambiguous definition (actually many) and in most cases cannot be defined for a population, which poses problems if evolution occurs at the population-level. How can you define evolution if you can't define a generation?129.127.101.245 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it isn't ambiguous-successive generations is very informative and is defined??? It explains life is a continuum with successive generations and that life has been modified through this descent.  Evolutionary biologist can't define a species (7 definitions) so I don't see your point-that's why they usually speak in terms of populations.


 * Successive generations: (not just generation you are taking it out of its context) isn't ambiguous nor does it exclude anything. No more than evolution is-which has different meanings, or genetic drift-drift can be ambiguous too. You state successive generations doesn't take into account mutations or HGT (which is common in microbes and plants) but how does "time"? Besides all that is addressed in the body of article and this is suppose to a short concise definition. Here is a common dictionary definition: "Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." Encyclopedia Britannica:"Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." So I would argue it isn't ambiguous and would vote no on your suggestion. It isn't my definition btw mine was years ago with the standard gene centric Dobzhansky definition of shifts in alleles etc. This definition was hammered by numerous editors and I still support it. GetAgrippa (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your example is evolution as the definition states-change in traits of a population through successive generations. Life is a continuum. The generation before gave birth to your generation of rabbits with 12 long ears and 8 short ears=if the population were not evolving then the proportion of the traits in successive generations won't change if it is a simple Mendelian trait of dominant and recessive and it will be in equilibrium for generations (if no recombination). Now you have changed the population due to natural selection, random death,  or migration so the population of 12 big ears and 8 small ears is now equal numbers of both that will now reproduce. These mechanisms act on the variation within the population. The proportion of individuals with the traits has changed that generation from past generations and will for subsequent generations=evolution. Lastly from your response about the fruit flies I think you are conflating ideas. Mutations aren't synonymous with evolution. The mutation has to have an effect and emerge as a biological trait. The initial mutation event had no appreciable trait (it wasn't evolution) and it was only till synthetic pesticides were invented that the mutation emerged as trait. The mutation was meaningless till then and wasn't a "trait".  Populations have variation because of a random mutation, or gene flow, or most often genetic recombination during reproduction and then  the mechanisms of natural selection, drift, gene flow, etc. can alter that variation in a population such that the traits change over successive generations.  GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry so long winded and rambling-just one of those weeks. Anyways the problem I see with just time would be this example that would confuse the reader. The Artic rabbit you come in summer they are all brown you come back in winter they are all white-the population trait changed during this  "time"  (but it hasn't over successive generations) but this epigenetic change we see isn't evolution-however the trait of coat color being epigenetically sensitive to the environment is evolution as it is passed heritable and passed on over successive generations.  Now the trait surely evolved but our monitoring the expression of the trait through "time" isn't evolution-the trait is not evolving by changing coat colors it is passed on to subsequent generations.  It is a heritable trait that changed over "time" but isn't evolution because it isn't a change in successive generations. So successive generations makes the distinction it isn't just time such that an epigenetic change like blue or red hydrangeas would be considered evolution. Now there are examples of a heritable epigenetic change that can last over successive generations and later be fixed as an evolutionary change-Lamb, etc. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't convinced me. I'll answer a couple of your questions below in case you genuinely want an answer.
 * "You state successive generations doesn't take into account mutations or HGT (which is common in microbes and plants) but how does "time"?" -- in the context of the proposed definition, any change that occurred from point a to point b in time, which would cover mutation and HGT, is considered evolution -- this is how 'time' accounts for mutation and HGT.
 * "Besides all that is addressed in the body of article and this is suppose to a short concise definition." -- changing 'generations' to 'time' doesn't change the length or conciseness of the definition, merely makes it more accurate.
 * "Here is a common dictionary definition" -- who says the dictionary has it right? I personally wouldn't be trusting a dictionary for an accurate definition on a technical scientific term.
 * "So I would argue it isn't ambiguous" -- just because a term is used often, doesn't make it unambiguous.
 * "Your example is evolution as the definition states-change in traits of a population through successive generations" -- but there was only a single generation in the example; the change described in the example can't be evolution according to the current definition, yet it should be.
 * Another hypothetical example with our rabbits, but this time lets say they live to 100 and can reproduce at any age, any time of the year, and as many times as they want -- there are baby bunnies being popped out at any given time; parents living alongside offspring, grandparents, and cousins, grandparents the same age as siblings, etc. How can you define generations (or successive generations)? In this example, 'generation' becomes something that can really only be defined at an individual level. You'd be hard-pressed trying to define it for the population. You said yourself "individuals don't evolve-populations do", but if a generation can only be defined at an individual-level, then how can it be included in the definition of evolution?


 * On a lighter note, I like how you turned my hypothetical animals into rabbits -- I hadn't pictured anything for them, if anything maybe just some human ears floating around, lol.


 * In the Arctic rabbits, the colour change would not be considered evolution by the proposed definition because the colour at any given time in this case is not a heritable trait, so there is no dilemma here. The heritable trait would be the coat that changes colour across seasons.
 * The example you give about heritable epigenetic change that can last over successive generations is equally problematic for either definition -- both would identify it as evolution. A molecular perspective would solve this -- if "heritable traits" was changed to "allele frequencies", but it sounds like some people want to keep this as it is for some reason, although there's no need for a distinction between evolution and molecular evolution (unless it's supposed to serve as an historically used definition).


 * It's getting to the point where it's not worth my time to continue to push this (actually I think it's past that), and I can't imagine it's worth your time either, although it has been enjoyable discussing this with you so far. All these evolution pages are a bit of a mess anyway, so even if this change was approved it's still only a drop in the ocean in terms of improving these pages. We've each had our say and it seems we've reached an impasse; perhaps we should wait and let others contribute their thoughts (although I have my doubts about whether anybody will). 129.127.101.245 (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah changing this article takes an act on Congress-I championed certain additions for years (not sure they are still here). However I agree you haven't convinced anyone to change it-believe me I empathize some 8-9 years ago I read the article and it was mess then. Change has been slow and up and down with periods of bone fide evolutionary biologist contributing to lay people. It has evolved repeatedly LOL. GetAgrippa (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If any consolation most of my suggestions for changes have been rejected by past editors over the years. I find some irony I am now the one resistant to a change. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015
According to the theory of evolution, all of life on earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor,

Jonefre (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Declined Redundant words, consensus does not favour the phrase "theory of". Samsara 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Atheistic evolution
Pretty poor article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a joke, isn't it?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied at the other discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Gap9551 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pew studies have examined this in the US. The majority of Christians accept evolution and that man has evolved, however evangelical fundamentalist Christians and Black protestants belief man was created by God and hasn't changed. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/. "Atheistic" evolution is a fallacious notion because apparently lots of Christians believe in "Atheistic evolution"-which creates a paradox no? My bet a short-lived stub of an article. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015
Requesting to update an important theory on the evolutionary logic of the brain.

Evolutionary logic of the brain

How does evolution create the brain to be capable of flexible and generative cognition? Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku has joked that there have been tens of thousands of researchers who have researched the brain for more than a century since Roman Y Cajal laid the foundation of neuron doctrine; there was not a single theory or hypothesis about the design principles of intelligence. Recently, neuroscientist Joe Tsien who previously created smart mouse Doogie back in 1999, has put forth a “power-of-two” based wiring logic, also known as The Theory of Connectivity, which provides the basic computational principle in organizing the microarchitecture of neural clique assemblies that would readily enable knowledge and adaptive behaviors to emerge upon learning ;

At its core, The Theory of Connectivity predicts that the cell assemblies in the brain are not random, but rather should conform to the power-of-two based equation, N =2i-1, to form the pre-configured building block termed as the functional connectivity motif (FCM). Instead of using a single neuron as the computational unit in some extremely simple brains, The theory denotes that in the most of the brains, a group of neurons exhibiting the similar tuning properties, termed as a neural clique, should serve as the basic computing processing unit (CPU). Defined by the power-of-two based equation,N =2i-1, each FCM consists of the principal projection neuron cliques (N), ranging from those specific cliques receiving specific information inputs (i) to those general and sub-general cliques receiving various combinatorial convergent inputs. As the evolutionarily conserved logic, its validation requires experimental demonstrations of the following three major properties: 1) Anatomical prevalence – FCMs are prevalent across neural circuits, regardless of gross anatomical shapes; 2) Species conservancy – FCMs are conserved across different animal species; 3) Cognitive universality – FCMs serve as a universal computational logic at the cell assembly level for processing a variety of cognitive experiences and flexible behaviors. More importantly, The Theory of Connectivity further predicts that the specific-to-general combinatorial connectivity pattern within FCMs should be pre-configured by evolution, and emerge innately from development as the brain’s computational primitives.  This proposed design principle can also explain the general purpose and computational algorithm of the cortex.

This proposed design principle of intelligence can be examined via various experiments, and can also be explored by neuromorphic engineers and computer scientists. However, Dr. Tsien cautioned that artificial general intelligence based on the brain principles can come with great benefits and potentially even greater risks.

Jacksse (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This theory doesn't reach the notability requirements for its own article let alone being shoe-horned into this one I'm afraid. Capeo (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016
In Adaptation please add to the last para a wikilink to Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. Suggest it be done as follows:

"These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to produce new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals."

becomes

"These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to produce new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals."

Thanks 106.69.51.23 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Done
 * Thanks for pointing that out. The link has been added. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

More ideas
I have some ideas I wrote about at User:Blackbombchu/sandbox/Evolution for people to research and use to add to this article. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition
I have twice made a relatively minor adjustment in the definition to evolution in the lede reflect the fact that evolution has always been and is still regarded today as a scientific theory, regardless of numerous individuals who would make the baseless claim that it is considered as a scientific fact. I know there has likely been past discussion of this, but cannot for the life of me see how it is possible that consensus would dictate that this fact be misrepresented here on a supposed encyclopedia. I invite REASONABLE DISCUSSION here before I make the change again to represent reality instead of fiction. Willietell (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For Christ's sake, please be aware that THEORY does not mean CRAZY GUESS. Furthermore, casually dismissing 150 f*cking years of research, experimentation and documentation as merely "speculation" is anti-science propaganda at its goddamned worst. Inserting blatant weasel wording to claim that scientists have been doing absolutely goddamned nothing but speculate and twiddle their goddamned thumbs for the last goddamned 15 decades is putting up a grotesquely offensive, and in your case, hypocritical fiction.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will make this request a single time as a courtesy, please refrain from the unnecessary foul language, or you will be reported. 150 years of research does not "convert a theory into a fact".  That take's unequivocal proof, which in the case of evolution simply does not exist. Thus, it still maintains the status of "THEORY". Willietell (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is complete bollocks. Take your creationist POV somewhere it may be appreciated.Charles (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Like, perhaps to one of the Cesspools Of Stupidity For Jesus, like Creationwiki or Conservapedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not even arguing the merit of whether or not evolution is true (which it isn't), my point isn't to try to prove or disprove the theory, (though it is easily dis-proven), The point here is that it is presented as fact in this article and should be presented as it actually is, A THEORY". Willietell (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems your concerns have already been well considered earlier - please read (or re-read?) the "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS" section above - esp Q3/A3 - as well as - the numerous archival discussions (for starters, see this archive search) regarding your concerns - also - please understand that talk pages are NOT "A FORUM" or "A SOAPBOX" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly misleading statement "Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation"
I thought this should be discussed before being changed, so I'm posting this to begin the discussion.

The statement "Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation" could be taken to imply that such selection factors as "artificial selection" and "sexual selection" are not known to cause adaptation, when in fact they are causing adaptation, but it is adaptation to the selection environment. In other words, for example artificial selection tends to cause adaptation desirable to the entity doing the selecting, rather than to the natural environment as such.

DonaldKronos (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sexual selection is just a special case of natural selection, and artificial selection is essentially natural selection in a controlled environment. I think the article's wording is OK as it is. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting sentence which is semantically true and I wouldn't change it. However it misses a lot of  the controversy. Wright did see Genetic drift as being "adaptive" and then later with Kimura's Neutral theory of molecular evolution-genetic drift became a possible adaptive agent again. Now the all adaptation is natural selection is the current mantra.  GetAgrippa (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the problematic word in the sentence is 'cause'. All of the evolutionary forces operate on all evolutionary change, so they all play a part in every adaptation. Under some circumstance mutations have an adaptive bias and an population will increase in fitness without the aid of natural selection. So, the sentence is false. However, I'm not really sure it needs to be changed. Natural selection is the only evolutionary mechanisms with an intrinsic adaptive bias and I don't want the central role of natural selection in the adaptive process to be lost in a forest of technical caveats that no one will care about. So, I would tentatively vote to leave it unchanged, but I could be convinced to change my mind if someone had elegant and more technically correct construction. LarryBoy79 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we can get hold of refs that drift is adaptive we should add, otherwse leave as is; drift is a cause of evolution but I'm not aware of it being an adaptive cause. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a trivial result of the mathematics that drift can fix beneficial traits. As populations grow smaller, beneficial traits are actually fixed at an ever increasing rate. The problem is that mutation tends to be biased against selection, and drift will fix new mutations at rates proportional to the rates the mutations arise, while it really is selection that make sure that the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations exceeds the rate of fixation of deleterious mutations, irrespective of the underlying mutational bias. But, if it happened to be the cause that most mutations were beneficial, then all natural selection could do is paddle the canoe of evolution down the river just a little faster than the flow of mutations and drift, but it wouldn't alter the ultimate destination.


 * All of that should be in any introductory text on population genetics, so cite [//www.amazon.com/Population-Genetics-A-Concise-Guide/dp/0801880092 Gillespie] or [//www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878933085/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687622&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0801880092&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=034PCCQ69SJE7C5F1XTH Hartl] or someone. But, the fixation of a beneficial mutation might not be what you mean by adaptation. You might mean something more like the construction of a complex system. This too can occur without the fixation of a single beneficial mutation through the action of natural selection, as Stoltzfus outlined. Though it is not widely appreciated, a basic argument of the kind Stoltzfus outlined must explain the origin of some complexity (though exactly how much is open for debate), and complex systems are often conflated with highly adapted systems. But honestly, it seems to me fundamentally obvious that the sentence cannot possibly be true in any rigorous sense. Adaptations cannot possibly arise without mutations, so, as [//books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sJtoAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=mutation+driven+evolution&ots=smlP8_3VDP&sig=ZJuk-MI31lv-k3RyQeocGpaBQWQ#v=onepage&q=mutation%20driven%20evolution&f=false Nei] will tell you, mutations are really the cause of adaptations. And of course, adaptive evolution clearly grinds to a halt if every thing reaches equilibrium, so we must need the random force of [//www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ge.16.120182.000245 drift] to keep pushing us off fitness peaks if we want adaptive evolution to continue. And, even if you agree with Coyne, as I do, that there isn't much to the shifting balance theory, or you dismiss Nei, or you have a personal grudge against Stoltzfus, there are many other prominent names we could parade around to contest the statement that Natural Selection is the only cause of adaptation. But it's all a little beside the point, IMO, since I don't think that the statement is completely misleading, it just lacks some of the subtlety I would like to see. But, I'm not sure that this article is really the place for that subtlety. LarryBoy79 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Protesteth too much?
I suggest that the first sentence in the last lede paragraph is a bit OTT and neither required nor stylistically appropriate for a general encyclopedia. It's the one beginning:

Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science,...

Have a look at the pages on other major scientific theories and I doubt you'll find any such "It is *too* true!" caveats. Yeah, yeah, I know evolution takes that much more of a beating from the crazies than does physics etc, but I don't see how that is an excuse for the sentence in question. Even in terms of regular WP policy, it would at least need some good sources to avoid being OR. For example, the claim that evolution is a "cornerstone" is a pretty heavyweight claim. So it needs some support. What exactly is a cornerstone anyway? Is it defined with enough precision to be used in this context? And against what measure of reliability is the claim made that evolution is "one of the most reliably established of all facts..."? Is it more or less reliable than such things as General Relativity, or Plate Tectonics. What is the unit of measurement of reliability?

Again, I know evolution is an attractor for the gawd-soaked, but is it really appropriate we take time out *in this article* to tackle that? I think not. Religion is the place for this-is-absolutely-true-and-don't-dare-forget-it strong-arming. This page is about science; we should let the science speak for itself. Sleety Dribble (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, that particular statement is there mostly to repel the gawd-soaked in the first place. Perhaps it could be rewritten to be less purple-prosy, or perhaps transplanted to another section of the article?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that but I'm saying that repelling people isn't the job of this article. WP already has methods, not perfect but there nonetheless, for handling vandalism or just plain stupidity, and I think those are the way to keep the page in good condition. Besides, is it likely that the kind of person the text in question is intended to deter is actually going to be deterred by it anyway? The text really is tantamount to saying "See what's written on this page ... well it's true and a lot of people agree with us." If someone doesn't accept the articles content, merely saying "Honest and for true" isn't going to change their mind. I've made an attempt to de-purple-prose-ify it but still leaving it in the lede.  Most of the rest of the content of that paragraph is fine -- I don't see a problem with mentioning practical applications up there. It's really just that first sentence, and a little of the tone throughout. See what you think with what I've done. Sleety Dribble (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a tweak to your change, if you don't mind.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * that's an improvement; looks good. Sleety Dribble (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The National Academies call evolutionary biology the “cornerstone of modern science” Most books say "Evolutionarybiology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science" ...its a basic statement that is repeated in the literature all over.......--Moxy (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having those WP:RS does make a difference, but I think this is really about balance of tone not precise details of content. Given your WP:RS, if you think the "cornerstone" thing needs reinstated, go ahead, although I strongly recommend that you don't. I note that four of the five top hits in a Google search for “cornerstone of modern science” point to pages about the religion-fueled controversy over evolution, and they appear to be using the phrase in the same polemical and Purple Prose (thanks Mr Fink!) fashion in which it was (or at least appeared to this reader to be) used here. Another way of looking at that is to note that it's quite reasonable to ask whether the notion that evolution or evolutionary biology is a cornerstone belongs at all in an article talking about the scientific theory of evolution. That notion is a question not of a natural science, but of the sociology of that science. Were we discussing edits to the article on Social effects of evolutionary theory or the Creation–evolution controversy article, it would be different matter and the cornerstone comment (with appropriate WP:RS of course) may well be justified. Anyway, as I say, I recommend you don't reinstate it, but I won't object or revert if you do. Your call (as far as I'm concerned -- I can't speak for anyone else). Sleety Dribble (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, Sleety Dribble, and I would argue that the cornerstone comment amounts to editorial commentary per WP:editorial. WP should present the facts supported by WP:RS and not tell the reader what to think. Plant surfer  08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! I find one of the most useful things about this sort of discussion is not just learning about the content, but also about some Wikipedia policy or other that I hadn't yet heard of. So far, this time, I have: WP:PEACOCK (via Mr Fink's mention of the also-new-to-me "Purple Prose"); and now your WP:EDITORIAL. What I find especially valuable about that kind of discovery is that I reckon those policies often constitute pretty robust "collaboration" patterns, devised and then ruggedized in the rough and tumble of everyday life at Wikipedia. That's some Class A smarts, and often applicable well beyond the realm of WP itself! (Just to be clear; I'm not saying that the reinsertion of "cornerstone", as WP:RS'ed by Moxy, would in fact constitute WP:EDITORIAL or WP:PEA. But I think the original use did. Regardless, it's nice to now have a name for what previously was just a gut feel. Hmm; if only I'd had it last week, then I might have avoided inflicting on everyone a by-now over 1000 word Talk discussion! :-) ) Sleety Dribble (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If I have been, then glad to have been of help in some way! If people adhered to WP:MOS there would be a lot fewer issues and conflict, but it is so incredibly easy to introduce puffery and of course editorialising, as people are tending to do automatically in conversation lately. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Plant surfer  14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is ET in the lede?
Is the following sentence, at the end of the second paragraph in the lede, on topic?

According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."

It seems out of place to me, having nothing to do with evolution per se. Should it be in the lede? Should it even be in the article at all? Sleety Dribble (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now removed it from the lede because I think it was given too much weight by including it there. It's possible that it is being given too much weight in the Evolution section as well. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016
The statement (...The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 demonstrated a physical basis for inheritance) on the page should be changed. Oswald Avery demonstrated that DNA (physical basis) was the hereditary material much earlier and I think that should be acknowledged on the page.

Kforai (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well he makes a good point because it is rather ambiguous. "Physical basis of inheritance" could be attributed to Gregor Mendel in one sense, Avery, Griffith, and others for DNA as heritable material in another sense, Crick, Brenner, Nirenburg, Leder for triplet codons and genetic code, and then Watson and Crick too. I guess it's fine to leave it but seems poorly worded. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And don't forget about Rosalind Franklin in all this mess.Farsight001 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite right, but I suspect that this page is not so much the one for that discussion. Nevertheless, I think a good case can be made that the current wording is not entirely accurate, I'm going to change the word "basis" to "mechanism" since I feel that better reflects what they are credited with. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  05:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the section of controversy and criticism?
(Pulled out of unrelated earlier section. Little bit of indent editing to clarify threading)

Where is the section of controversy and criticism? Is Wikipedia trying to silence opposing voices? The questions about evolution are growing and there is a significant minority of scientists who now disagree with it so not even listing those objections seems very dishonest to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.43.221 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The section you're looking for is probably Social and cultural responses which not only makes it clear that there is a controversy, it points the interested reader to some of the articles that expand on that. Now I'd be the first to admit that that section and the referenced articles are way too close, for my taste anyway, to being over the WP:NPOV line. In fact... I take that back. There's no question about it; they're totally over the line. To paraphrase Joey in Friends, "They're so far past the line that they can't even see the line; the line is a dot to them!". But whatchagonnado? This is WP after all, the editors of which tend, to some extent I suspect, towards being politically left of center, and scientifically materialist in their metaphysics (if they even accept that metaphysics is a thing!) In other words, the right of center, theist types, are probably a bit under-represented, yeah? So I'd suggest the place to take a stand on the controversy side of things is on one of those more expansive pages. You have a battle ahead of you for sure, which I can see from your IP log you've already encountered, but you have as much right to fight your corner as anyone else does theirs, and those pages are indeed the place to do it. As John Stuart Mill said, "However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth." And that holds just as much where the opinion is that evolution is true as where it is that when some teenage girl in ~4BC Palestine got pregnant it was by a sky fairy and not by her boyfriend. Here on this page, by contrast, it's just the science, and while it'll be tough enough to make your point on those controversy-focused pages, I think you'll be thoroughly on a hiding to nothing if you think you have enough WP:RS to make the case on this page for there being a scientific controversy. But as they say in Millwall, "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" (but here on the Talk page first, eh? Please!?) Sleety Dribble (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your framing is way off. This is not about left and right or about who is under- or over-represented, or about strong opinions, it is about science and piffle. Evolution is science, creationism is piffle. We describe both and we call them what they are. That is because we demand reliable sources, and creationists for some reason never happen to write any. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy, so there is no controversy section. No, wikipedia is not trying to silence opposing voices.  It just relies on the reliable sources from relevant experts - which means all the scientists you call a "significant minority", many of which are engineers and not scientists at all, and none of which are biologists (and before you ask, biochemistry is an area of chemistry, not biology), which is what would the relevant experts.  We'll list all the objections as soon as there are valid ones not based on a complete and utter failure to grasp what evolution actually is.  And just as an fyi, evolution has been directly observed in nature and recreated in a lab. (and yes, that includes what you would call "macroevolution"), so its as much a reality as gravity.  Kapish?Farsight001 (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. That there is a controversy surrounding evolution is as much a fact as evolution itself. A bonkers controversy for sure, and not one with any foothold within the scientific academy, but a quick Google for (unquoted) "evolution controversy" throws up over 94 million hits, so it's a thing whether we like it or not. And indeed in response to the IP commenter I'd say that the controversies surrounding evolution are so significant (qua controversy, i.e. sociologically at least) that they warrant more than can be sensibly covered in a mere section in this single article which is, after all, about the scientific theory itself. Sleety Dribble (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But.... Gravity is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! . . . dave souza, talk 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there is plenty of criticism but that is generally religious based and has nothing to do with evolution per se so would require a separate article-which I'm pretty sure there is one. There is no controversy "with" evolution but plenty of controversy on various aspects "in" evolution like origin of man, origin of sex, etc. But that too would be specific to an evolutionary topic so a separate article. But those don't question evolution just controversy on how to interpret the evidence to support something like modern man evolved in Africa or the multiregional hypothesis. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * At the top of the talk page there are a series of commonly asked questions (and answers to them); of of them is "Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?", and another one is "Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?" I recommend reading at least one of them. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design article is where the bulk of the pseudoscientific responses/criticisms to evolutionary theory are (e.g irreducible complexity, fine tuning argument etc), perhaps it's better you look there because this is the article about the scientific theory and there are no scientific controversies surrounding evolutionary theory.(not anymore that is.) It is rather an established scientific fact. <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 15:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking if we should create an article which would document the objections to evolution, apparently there is already an article called Objections to evolution and a rather good one.<span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead too specific
I think the lead is too specific in some places, such as: "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor,[3][4][5] which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago,[6] although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.[7][8]". Mentioning the study is too specific for the lead, and is there any reason as to why there are refs in the lead? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would propose that the opening sentence should read something like, "Evolution is the observed fact that all life forms on Earth appear to have descended from preexisting life forms by gradual change."

Robert1947 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * if "observed" in this sense mean seen by people, I don't think this definition is suitable (unless you're talking about micro-evolution). Also I think the opening statement should take more about traits, since this article mainly talks about traits and heredity and alleles and stuff like that (which the current opening statement handles pretty well). <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Does seem to specific for lead but introducing idea of LUCA is a worthy addition-how about a compromise and drop all the references to a simple sentence? "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor ,known as the last universal ancestor, from which all life, past and present, diversified by evolution. " Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's too specific. danielkueh (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The current lead, "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." is not accurate because it does not include changes at the genetic level that do not affect traits (i.e. phenotypes). A better definition would be "Evolution is change in the genetic composition of biological populations over successive generations."Emoneill (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm this could be problematic as we now know some epigenetic changes can persist successive generations but not a lasting change nor a change in genetic composition more so regulation by methylation or regulatory RNAs so perhaps a compromise- "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological population over successive generations because of changes in the genetic composition of the population." So you cover phenotype and genotype. Genetic composition is vague enough to cover things like changes in ploidy rather than a mutation producing the change in traits. "does not include changes at the genetic level that do not affect traits"??  If the genetic change doesn't affect a trait then it isn't evolution-least yet though I agree step changes can occur in a population till finally the last step and a trait emerges from all the genetic changes-much as in Linske bacteria, and pesticide resistance in fruit flies.  A genetic change is benign till it affects something-plenty of mutations occur in non-functional areas that do nothing. I don't I understand what you're stating? GetAgrippa (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Epigenetic changes are not evolution. Only change in the genetic (not epigenetic) make up (i.e. composition; think allele frequencies) of a population is evolution. And this includes silent mutations that do not affect phenotypes and changes in ploidy. Evolution is certainly not limited to phenotypic changes.Emoneill (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The role of epigenetics in evolution has been discussed in past regarding the work of Jablonska and Lamb, etc. I also note this article.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_-_Contribution_of_Epigenetic_Modifications . Well I agree a change in phenotype can occur with no genetic changes so that isn't evolution, and genetic changes can accumulate and eventually produce a change in a trait but if a genetic change-mutation, chromosomal change, or shift in alleles in a population isn't influencing some "trait" be it biochemical, physical, or developmental, or speciation sooner or later, how can that be evolution? You aren't saying all genetic changes are evolution ? I agree it's reasonable to say that genetic changes can accumulate and by chance environments a "trait" emerge that increases fitness, but that doesn't mean the chance event will ever occur-nor that any genetic change will ever lead to anything like our immune system recombines sequences to generate the B and T cell receptors for all the epitope threats we may encounter-doesn't mean we will encounter the threat. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All evolutionary change can be measured and modeled as changes in allele frequencies in populations. Mutations create new alleles, whose frequencies have changed from 0 to >0. Selection, migration, and drift, alter allele frequencies in various ways. Whether these changes in allele frequencies alter phenotypes or not, does not affect whether we call this evolution or not.Emoneill (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Mutations create new alleles but as important is recombination during sexual reproduction to produce new combinations of alleles. But a shift in gene alleles corresponds to variations in a "trait". The transposon responsible for pesticide resistance in fruit flies dominates 80% of the worlds population now but the gene is some 35,000 years old and evolution didn't occur till the last 200 years and genes and trait became more prominent in the population as it coincides with a resistance to pesticides. . An allele is alternative forms of a gene-and genes have some property or function-a trait. some traits are complex and an emergent property of numerous genes or gene networks. It almost sounds like you support mutationism or any and all genetic change is evolution? But you don't have to have any genetic change to have evolution as the deep thermal vent bacteria give insight the bacteria of today are the same of those from 2 billion years ago. The environment hasn't changed and the processes of evolution have selected for the same traits to persists-if any mutations they have been benign it appears to be in HW equilibrium.  GetAgrippa (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Recombination does not change allele frequencies, however it can generate novel genetic combinations, which may influence how selection acts on the alleles... A shift in allele frequencies does not necessarily result in changes in traits. Many loci of the genome do not affect phenotypes. This is not at all controversial... In the example for pesticide resistance, you seem to suggest that only adaptive evolution is considered evolution. That is not correct. Adaptive evolution is only one type of evolution. Other types include genetic drift, migration, mutation... And yes, any and all heritable genetic change in a population is evolution. That is not mutationism that is how evolution is defined and how it is studied. Again, this is totally uncontroversial. You absolutely need to have genetic change to have evolution... Deep thermal bacteria are not the same at the genetic level as they were 2 billion years ago. We do not have data on their genomes from 2 billion years ago, however I am confident that mutations, selection, drift, and horizontal gene transfer have occurred. And while the environment has changed little in those places and natural selection may be largely stabilizing in nature, that does not support your case in any way. Furthermore, HWE is maintained when evolution is not occurring.Emoneill (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the issues with the current lead: "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." There are actually two problems with this statement. First, traits can have different levels of heritability, which is the proportion of trait variation that is the result of genetic effects. If heritability is less than 1 (i.e. 100%), then they trait is affected by the environment and changes in the environment can lead to changes in the trait, which is not evolution. The second problem is that this definition ignores genetic changes that may not affect traits (i.e. phenotypes). All changes in allele frequencies (for genes that affect phenotypes and genes that do not) are all evolution. The definition that I proposed "Evolution is change in the genetic composition of biological populations over successive generations." includes all forms of evolution and does confuse phenotypic plasticity or epigenetic changes with evolution. I would also be happy with the definition provided by UC Berkeley: on their webpage (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02) "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)." Emoneill (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well initially the definition was more the Dobzhansky shift in gene alleles, then it was changed as being too gene centric, it was descent with modification for a bit too. Problem is it has changed many times often at the behest of evolutionary biologist-numerous have worked on it. It's been argued to death all over the place if you follow the history. Seems history keeps repeating itself LOL. Yes I went back to look it was morphological not genomic with the sulfur bacteria-my bad 2 billion years should have caught my attention. Well I think I was confused at what you've been saying because at one time it sounds like you stated you didn't have to have genetic change to have evolution and then the opposite? Anyways I agree your definition is great-it's been that before more than once-I think before it was changed to "trait or phenotype" if not mistaken, I don't follow the article like I use too. But someone will change it in all probability. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should change the whole focus of the article in light of https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/ . LOL ;) GetAgrippa (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So, what now?Emoneill (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "So what now?" Your guess is as good as mine-I gave up on trying to modify this article long ago. Even with numerous peer-reviewed publications it's often a battle so you have to cajole editors to agree to a change. I'd support your suggestion to shift it to "genetic change" emphasis. Good luck. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually leave it as it is. Because your comment "Epigenetic changes are not evolution. " is contradicted by this Wikipedia article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_of_epigenetic_modifications_to_evolution" and publications like Science and prion molecular evolution in culture and works on ciliates and their odds means of genetic regulation. The article stated that "While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13] So NPVO demands epigenetic inclusion Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a few problems with leaving it “as it is”. First, as I pointed out in my original post here, the current lead does not include the changes at the genetic level that do not affect traits (i.e. phenotypes). It is completely uncontroversial that changes in any allele frequencies are evolution, regardless of whether these changes affect phenotypes. In fact much if not most of the genetic variation in any population does not affect phenotypes. However this genetic variation changes over generations and that has been accepted as evolution for about 100 years. This simply cannot be excluded in the definition. Second, the Wikipedia article you used to back up your argument is very poorly cited. Many of the statements are either not cited or do not cite the primary source. Therefore confirming the accuracy of this article is challenging at best. Furthermore, I am not arguing about whether epigenetic inheritance can “contribute to the variations seen in species today”. That is undeniable. However, not all variation seen in species is the result of evolution. Phenotypic plasticity also contributes to variation seen in species today, however changes resulting from plasticity are not considered evolution by anyone. While some biologists would like to include epigenetic effects in the definition of evolution because some of these effects are heritable, it is currently not clear what proportion is heritable and how permanent those epigenetic changes are. Some are not heritable at all. Ultimately, we don’t want a definition of evolution that includes epigenetic changes whose long term effects are not well understood, but excludes phenotypically silent evolution, which has been part of the theory of evolution for about 100 years and whose effects are very well understood. There are several possible solutions to all of these these problems. One is to change the definition of evolution to include both changes in heritable traits (phenotypic changes resulting from heritable epigenetic effects and from genetic effects) and changes in the genetic composition (i.e. genotypes, regardless of whether they affect phenotypes) of a population. This would be most inclusive, and avoid including non-heritable variation (i.e. most epigenetic changes and phenotypic plasticity). However, I would point out that there is not a consensus among evolutionary biologist about whether or not heritable epigenetic changes should be considered evolution. So this would be quite controversial. Alternatively, we could use a simple definition that replaces the word traits with the word characteristics: "Evolution is a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." The term "characteristics" could include both phenotypes and genotypes. Therefore, this does not exclude heritable epigenetic changes or phenotypically silent evolution at the molecular level. I prefer this. Emoneill (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is another definition that might be even better: "Evolution is the change in genetic or heritable epigenetic composition of a biological population over successive generations." Emoneill (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is correct that genotypic changes that do not affect phenotype are included in evolution (the start of this thread). The words epigenetic and genetic should be avoided i the first sentence, because they are technical. The word trait is chosen because it is a common word, understood by many. Because it is so common, I think it is agnostic conserning the difference between phenotype and genotype. My personal intuition is that the nucleotide in a particular locus can also be seen as a trait. I checked Wiktionary, to no avail. So I don't see the (first) conflict that this thread intends to remedy.--Ettrig (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "trait" clearly refers to a phenotype, not a genotype. This is widely accepted in biology and if you go the wikipedia article for "trait" you will see that is clearly about phenotypes, not genotypes. Emoneill (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Wikipedia says that in Biology, trait is phenotype. But in the first sentence, we are to use the words in their general sense, so I looked in Wiktionary. The word 'trait' has a very general meaning. In that sense it is not incorrect. I agree that it might be better to find another word, so as not to impress a meaning that goes against the specific use in biology. feature? Please remember also that we cannot use technical terms like genetic, and definitely not epigenetic in the first sentence. --Ettrig (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In biology, the word trait has a very specific meaning, phenotype. The fact that trait can mean other things outside of biology is irrelevant because these other meanings do not include genotype. I am fine with not including epigenetic or genetic in the first sentence. I previously suggested the word "characteristic", which is more general than trait and not limited to phenotype or genotype. Can anyone comment to that suggestion? Emoneill (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * YES! Good solution. --Ettrig (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing that. Can you also remove the link to phenotypic traits that is there?Emoneill (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I wasn't thinking straight. --Ettrig (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Characteristic" is fine but so was trait. A trait isn't synonymous with phenotype. The phenotype doesn't indicate the trait, but the state of that trait (i.e. the trait eye color has the phenotypes blue, brown and hazel). But I would use "trait" or "character" interchangeably so perhaps this is simpler and less confusing. GetAgrippa (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point, which is the fact that trait refers to phenotypes not genotypes. That was the problem.Emoneill (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that a trait is a trait (a character) and a phenotype describes the state of the trait (it isn't the trait so eye color or flower color is a trait and the actual color the state of the trait ) and  the trait has a genotype -the genetic mechanism for the emergence of the trait. In that context a "Trait" has both a phenotype and genotype and then environment can influence the expression of the state of the trait. But for the intro I think keeping it simple is perhaps best to avoid confusion-so dropping "Trait" for "characteristic" or "character" is fine so "trait" can be explained in body of text. Well after reading "Phenotypic trait"  it states "A phenotypic trait, or simply trait, is a distinct variant of a phenotypic characteristic of an organism; it may be either inherited or determined environmentally, but typically occurs as a combination of the two.[1] For example, eye color is a character of an organism, while blue, brown and hazel are traits." So in keeping with other Wikipedia articles "character" should be the word choice. However I disagree with this article (much as those who disagreed with Epigenetic article) because they are making phenotype and trait as synonymous and then use "character" . So they have it you have a "character" like eye color which has a "trait' (like blue, brown or hazel eye color is the trait and this is also the phenotype). I find that confusing terminology??  So Mendelian trait  article should now be Mendelian "character"-don't think so. A Mendelian "trait" has phenotypes and genotypes that describe the state of the trait.-not a Mendelian character has traits  (as synonymous with phenotype) and genotypes.  I think the Phenotypic trait article needs some "splainin'", but in any case just my opinion so change this article however you like.  Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While the terms character and trait are often defined as you describe above in freshman textbooks, they are frequently used interchangeably in the primary literature. And as you mention these definitions result in conflicts between other established terms. BTW someone should add a citation to that eye color example you gave. But all of that is beside the main point of this discussion...most genetic variation does not affect traits, so suggesting that evolution is something that only affects traits is leaving out most evolution. Just want to make sure that you understand that point. Emoneill (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

needs link to "antigenic"
I propose to add a link in section "biased mutation" last sentence "Mutations are biased towards antigenic variants in outer-membrane proteins" - antigen is an existing wiki article and explains the meaning of "antigenic" (which wasnt obvious for me and i suppose adding the proposed link would make the article more reader friendly for others as well.176.63.176.112 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC).
 * ✅. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking to complete books online
This page contains quite a few books on evolutionary theory, which readers might find helpful. What is Wikipedia's policy with regard to linking to copyrighted material, particularly with regard to those volumes listed in the modern directory? I am not entirely certain what Wikipedia's policy is (Wikipedia:Copyrights), as it doesn't seem to discourage it, except in cases when it does. Cesaravi (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It does say that the works are there by permission, right? If they weren't, we couldn't link. We link to copyright material all the time - media sites, Google books, etc. It's only when the site is hosting copyright material illegally that we don't link. Doug Weller  talk 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure about the policy. I'm not really concerned about the content hosted on the SJG website, but rather some of the links provided in the modern books directory. Here many complete books are available (classics like The Blind Watchmaker and Wonderful Life), but there is no information provided to indicate that the files are being hosted with the permission of the copyright holder. Google.Books puts itself in a different legal position because not all pages are publicly available, and the content is not downloadable. Now I've frequently seen complete articles being linked to on Wikipedia (likely without permission) but I can't find a general consensus on Wikipedia with regard to full volume books. Cesaravi (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I can't see any sign of the complete books there having their copyright released in favour of CC-by-SA or anything like that: these are fully commercial books and both their publishers and authors rely on the income they provide. We should err on the side of the law, and steer clear of linking to sites of that kind. Gould's of course is a famous name, but he is dead and we have no idea how that site is run. Don't link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. According to the SJG website, it is independently operated and given permission to host Dr. Gould's writings by the copyright holder. However I'm only inquiring about a particular page on the website which links to content, which in all likelihood, was uploaded without the knowledge of the copyright owner. In some cases the books are fairly recent and I can easily see the files harming the publisher's sales; in others the books are decades old and have been out of print for several years. But I will defer to your judgment, as you make a very fair point. Cheers. Cesaravi (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Out of print is not out of copyright; if an author writes a book at age 20, it might go out of print a few years later, but if she lives to be 90 in a country with copyright until 70 years after death, the copyright expires 140 years after the book was written, including say 135 years while it was out of print. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood you. I doubt very much that those books are their legally. Don't link. Doug Weller  talk 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I looked at the site, I couldn't find anything which explained their status wrt copyright. That makes me feel uncomfortable.   TomS TDotO (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After rereading Wikipedia:Copyrights, it now makes sense. Cheers. Cesaravi (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Evolution as self-organisation?
It seems to me that the notion of biological evolution of species as "self-organisation" phenomenon might be a explained a bit in this article. It might help with those who doubt evolution. I've sourced a book on the subject. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Which book is that? - oh I see, you mean you've added a source.


 * Curiously, I just came across a talk page discussion at Spontaneous order, where an IP had asked exactly that question (and been sternly put down). I'm just wondering if there is some mysterious difference between Spontaneous order and Self-organization, or whether these are just the terms used in different contexts for the same thing, in which case a merger would be in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I put in a book by Stuart Kauffman. I'm not an expert in biology, but I think the idea of SO is pedagogically useful. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Chiswick, perhaps you can add a sentence or two on this subject to the article? (I don't feel qualified.) Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only place I think it could have gone was the history, and that's only a brief summary here, so I have thought better than to put it in this article. Instead, I've added a section at History of evolutionary thought; and that treats Kauffman's idea as unconventional (it might become mainstream one day) because it ignores the role of energy in thermodynamically open living systems, i.e. "self-organizing" isn't quite right, though "self-catalyzing" could cut it. I suspect that people have a suspicion that natural selection itself is self-organizing, which it isn't. It is true that self-organizing processes (such as fatty molecules arranging themselves into membranes) are co-opted by evolution, but that isn't the same thing. More at Johnson and Lam 2010. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds reasonable. The article by Johnson and Lam is very interesting. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another good article on the subject. http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An excellent article. Self-replication is energy-driven, so a good example of self-catalysis, not self-organization per se. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Restructure Mechanisms and Variation - avoid duplication
Currently there is some duplication in this article. Both the Variation and Mechanisms section have a subsection called Gene flow. I think it is a good idea to give the Mechanisms section, two subsections: mechanisms that cause variation and mechanisms that "sort"/"restrict" variation. This could make it easier to understand the connection between the Variation and Mechanisms sections and also resolve the current duplication. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017
Edits: Replace some words with more accurate counterparts. Correct a few grammar mistakes. Cheshirecat8021 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. @Cheshirecat8021: You need to be specific about which grammar issues need addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits: People have been forgetting that Evolution is a theory. some of the wording in the article seems to say that it is a hard fact. Cheshirecat8021 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Q3 in the FAQ above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheshire, I just happened to look at your contributions and, from my experience, if you keep pushing the POV that you are clearly pushing you're going to wind up topic banned from creationism and evolution. In the least. WP deals in established science and doesn't entertain religious or pseudoscientific ideas as such. I'd suggest a course change. Capeo (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between the every day use of the term and a Scientific theory which this is. This is well covered at Evolution as fact and theory.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

why is evolution favored over creation
To begin, I am not out to troll, change the rules, or oppose evolution. I just want to know why evolution is treated as a fact (science never claims finality) while creation is treated as an impossible concept. Like, sites like Talk:Origins are no less biased than Answers in Genesis, and yet Wikipedia accepts the former as a source while the latter is treated as unreliable. How is this? And in case you bring up WP:FORUM, it is helpful to know why some sources are unreliable while others are not. I am not out to disrupt or change the rules. 2600:1:F148:CDE1:11EA:39CC:FC17:EAF1 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, no rudeness or profanity. I am not here to disrupt. So don't treat me rudely. 2600:1:F148:CDE1:11EA:39CC:FC17:EAF1 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, no debating on whether creation or evolution is true or why. Neither is a fact (creation is a religious belief while evolution is a scientific theiry which, like all svientific theories, may be not only revised but even discarded with new discoveries. 2600:1:F148:CDE1:11EA:39CC:FC17:EAF1 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, your premise is flawed. It's like asking why neurology is favored over the Imago Dei or why physiology is favored over the Incarnation.  Evolution is not really favored over any other scientific theory because none of the other theories are scientific.  You admit that creationism is religion and evolution is science (and no, it is a fact, as can be seen here) -- the two come together in Theistic evolution.  What evolution does disprove is an overreaction against Darwinism that forces omnipotent God to operate according to our chronological standards and reduces the philosophical poetry of Genesis into bland pseudoscientific mythology.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What specific changes do you suggest to improve the article in this regard? Just plain Bill (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just understand what makes certain sources unreliable but others acceptible even if both have nonneuteal agenda. I am not going to make this page into a forum. Just wish to understand what makes certain sources unreliable but others reliable. 2600:1:F148:CDE1:11EA:39CC:FC17:EAF1 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading the FAQs at the top of this page may be helpful.Charles (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also studying the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidlines, such as Identifying reliable sources and Neutral point of view --Epipelagic (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is simply a matter of effort. If you just give the matter a superficial look, as you did, you will not see the difference. But creationist reasoning is based on fallacies. They often quote scientists, and if you actually look up the quote in the original, you will find, except in some cases where it does not matter, that it is cherry-picked, taken out of context, and misleading, and that the source, taken as a whole, tells a different story from the words quoted alone. Either that, or the "scientist" is actually a creationist himself, and his reasoning is just as flimsy. If you remove all such faults from creationist literature, there is nothing left. has a list of faulty creationist reasoning. Don't just believe what t.o says! Look up the original sources. This is a bit of work, but if you actually do it, you will find creationism is a sham that can only strive because most people are too lazy to look at the original sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In brief, it is the evidence (as reported by reliable sources) that causes evolution to be favored over creationism. I know it is a hard ask, but since you are sincerely asking, I have to suggest getting a copy of The Blind Watchmaker and slowly reading at least half of it. Please ignore any advocacy against religion—your question is about evolution and that book gives an interesting overview which can be read without considering arguments regarding religion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, this discussion will have to end soon because, as the questioner indicated, it is a NOTFORUM problem. However, the folk at the science reference desk are likely to provide extensive thoughts on any thoughtfully worded question relating to evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope that there is nothing in Wikipedia which argues against creation, which is a religious opinion. Creationism, on the other hand, is an argument against evolution. Evolution is a scientific topic, which is accepted by the consensus of all sciences to which it relates, including scientists who believe in creation.  TomS TDotO (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Creation myths are a dime a dozen. We cover them; we just cover them as creation myths, which is what they are. In considering reliable sources, we're not only comparing the modern incarnation of the Judaeo-Christian creation myth with the process of evolution through natural selection, but we're also comparing the Judaeo-Christian creation myth with all other previous such myths, and it tuns out there's not really any compelling reason to give it much preference either in prominence or seriousness. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is a wide-spread belief that creationism is the traditional standard of Christianity ("that old-time religion") or something called "Judeo-Christian belief". It is a product of mid-20th century Evangelical Protestantism in the USA. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To continue to egregiously violate NOTFORUM (it's a Sunday, and I'm trying to put off cleaning and packing), I live in Appalachia, so I'm keenly aware of the newest incarnation of the thing. At it's heart, the Genesis creation story is just one of many such Mesopotamian myths, and heavily borrows from them to boot. While there's fairly evidently two distinct modern strains of the thing: the blank biblical literalist, and the sophisticated apologist (see also Irreducible complexity), they are at the base of it, either blind adherence to, or decorative lipstick on the pig of a fairly run-of-the-mill bronze age myth. At the end of the day, the real miracle of the Old Testament is how fundamentally unoriginal it is. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017
The current version of the article lacks an update on the direction of the field over the most recent decades. Add the following to the end of the "History of evolutionary thought" section:

"Since the beginning of the 21st century and in light of new discoveries in recent decades, there has been a push among biologists for an extended evolutionary synthesis, which would account for the effects of non-genetic inheritance modes, such as epigenetics, parental effects, ecological and cultural inheritance, and evolvability. " 128.84.126.45 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Evolutions impact on other areas of thought
Evolution has had an impact on ideas, for example eugenics. Should this be included in the article?--Edittrack121 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe. You'll need academic sources meeting WP:RS discussing evolution. Doug Weller  talk 15:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller Yeah I know. I will try to source some. I think the impact of evolution in a cultural sphere is worth bringing up, but maybe the dust didn't settle from previous updates yet.--Edittrack121 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Edittrack121: Evolution already has a link to Social effects of evolutionary theory which does cover eugenics reasonably, and there are good sources in that last article also. Given this coverage, I'd suggest that a very brief mention, wikilink and ref would be enough for that topic, and that the Social and cultural responses section would be the place for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, and I didn't know that link existed, so thank you for it, @Chiswick Chap --Edittrack121 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC).

Had Abiogenesis Happened Once?
Does life arise from non-living matter constantly if yes then why we don’t see the disappearing transitional species or individual fully or partially developed tissues, organs, systems, and organisms?2001:56A:7399:1200:442E:72F:7C01:C672 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)EEK
 * Abiogenesis doesn't mean that organs just pop out of nowhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an issue of Abiogenesis. But I didn't see it addressed there - someone with appropriate citations should explain it there. The quick answer seems to be that once life is established, any new precursors of life would be quickly consumed by established life forms. TomS TDotO (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer but life can originate concurrently and constantly at local, regional depend upon the watershed, continental and global level, therefore, there are chances of the establishment of many different life at local, regional, continental and global level. I respect Wikipedia rules so period. 2001:56A:7399:1200:1C6E:259D:5630:25AE (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)EEK
 * Talk pages are for discussions to improve articles. There are other (non-Wikipedia) venues for this type of discussion. If you have a question, please ask at the Reference desk/Science. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not a forum. It is inappropriate to be making unsupported assertions here. Please concentrate on improving the encyclopedia, any material to be included in an article needs to be verifiable and reliably sourced. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  08:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the questioner was looking for a forum but I think there is a good question here about the lede sentence. It currently begins with "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor". This is only true if "all life" is defined to be that with a common ancestor. It is entirely possible that there are completely independent forms of life living alongside us which we simply haven't seen or recognized as deserving to be called alive. We can only ever prove that more than one exists. We can never prove that there is not more than one. So I propose changing that to begin with "All known life on Earth shares a common ancestor". If there is no objection, I will intend to make that change. Cutelyaware (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. We can only ever talk about known, reliably sourced, verifiable facts, so we really don't want to put those words into every article. Here, "known" would imply the POV and unsourced claim that we suspect there to be unknown forms lurking somewhere. We should not say that against a clear scientific consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For source, see Hypothetical types of biochemistry. And that is only talking about chemical life. Other exotic forms of life are also possible. Not saying "known" would be making the unsourced claim that we know there is no shadow biosphere. I'm not suggesting we make this change to any other pages simply because doubt exists. I'm objecting to a currently unsourced claim that is arguably false. Cutelyaware (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823062546/http://www.im.microbios.org/04december98/14%20Chapman.pdf to http://www.im.microbios.org/04december98/14%20Chapman.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824074726/http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf to http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110031233/http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf to http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823062637/http://lics.leeds.ac.uk/2003/200304.pdf to http://lics.leeds.ac.uk/2003/200304.pdf
 * Added tag to http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/450

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/450
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718090526/http://www.molbio.wisc.edu/carroll/Fittest.html to http://www.molbio.wisc.edu/carroll/Fittest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

On the history
That section seems too Eurocentric. I'll add one mention about an Arab scholar in the medieval section. CaliphoShah (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't post theories as fact
The article should not claim that all life on earth comes from a single ancestor when such a thing has not been proven to be true. It is a theory, and should be reported as such if the legitimacy of wikipedia is to be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:f208:5e00:b5f7:f6cc:4407:d83a (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2017‎


 * Evolution by natural selection is an established scientific fact, which is why the article treats it as such. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see:
 * The FAQ at the top of this talk page
 * Evidence of common descent
 * Evolution as fact and theory
 * Scientific theory.
 * — Paleo Neonate  - 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, Tim. I back up the previous unsigned comment 100%. This entry is a misleading travesty, and disrespectful to the core values of the scientific method. It also does a disservice to the reader. It is almost entirely composed of reaching statements that present as proven facts. Incredibly, in at least 1 instance components of the theory being discussed are actually referred to with the word "fact" as the primary overall descriptor for the passage. This is NOT how we write about science. Remember the golden rule of Wikipedia: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The VERY FIRST SENTENCE should roundly state that "Evolution" is an informal term for the "Theory of Evolution." As it is, most reference works use a redirect that is completely opposite of what is being used here - look up "Evolution and it redirects you to "Theory of Evolution" not the other way around. I work in Pharma and write extensively about the field of Pharma Development. Publishing something even approaching this level of misleading would be professional suicide and might even get you thrown in jail by the FDA. Let's develop, reinforce and celebrate clear boundaries when it comes to academic subjects. That's what separates science from magic - a theory is just a theory (even if it happens to be a fairly well accepted theory that we happen to agree with). I submit in closing that the entry for Evolution desperately needs extensive revision. As we say in the Pharma business: "Back to Formula." User:Z1nemo Z1nemo (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible if you could specify what you would like to see improved in the article? I must inform you that credential dropping and talk of "professional suicide" while conflating colloquial "theory" (i.e., a wild guess) with "scientific theory" (a detailed explanation concerning a particular phenomenon or suite of related phenomena) and making obtusely arcane threats of jail will guarantee other editors will tune you and your concerns out. That, and are you aware that is actually arguing the opposite, i.e., that evolution by natural selection is a (repeatedly) established fact?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Also to add - apologies for mis-location of post and the user misidentification in earlier post. I misread and then failed to post the corrected text. In response to User:Timothyjosephwood - Evolution is an established and mostly well-received scientific THEORY. Which means that it's only one idea about what may have happened. It is NOT a fact in even the stretchiest sense. Facts, by definition MUST be provable. Evolution is not, and most likely never will be provable. That's because in science, Facts must be proven through observation. Since nobody can go back in time millions or billions of years to watch for evolution and verify whether or not that's the way things really happened, it will never progress beyond a theory. In addition, Evolution has its fair share of paradoxes and troublesome anomalies. The discovery of the evolutionary debacle surrounding the discovery of the first living Coelacanth and a glaring deficit of transitional fossils in the geological record are 2 examples if you want to look into it. There are also plenty of competing theories - The Panspermia argument is a popular one (though I don't personally subscribe). Finally, there have been numerous well-supported objections to the evolution concept from a variety of disciplines. My favorite is an argument based on the principles of mathematical probability - anything carrying a base level probability of less than 1 in 10^51 is considered to be effectively impossible (There haven't been enough unique interactions in the known history of the universe). The probability of a single protein of modest sequence length forming by chance (as life is supposed to have gotten its start according to evolutionary theory) is 1 in 10^260, well over 5 times the mathematical threshold for impossibility. And that's just ONE single strand of viable protein. The simplest lifeforms known to man require thousands of completely different proteins. The likelihood that all of those were to spontaneously form and gather in a sufficient quantity to assemble a cell 1/10th the size of the smallest single celled organism ever discovered? 1 in 10^340,000,000. Obviously there is at least 1 pretty important missing piece in our theory and the hardest part is there is no way to test variables and record observations. Despite countless attempts, spontaneous generation has never been reproduced, even in controlled environments conducive to life. Why was it somehow able to happen in the past? Those odds were calculated through the cooperative efforts of Sir Fred Hoyle Sir Bernard Lovell James Coppedge Harold Coffin and Harold J. Morowitz all were world-renowned scientists from a broad array of disciplines including Zoology, Astrobiology, Physics and Radioastronomy. That's the 3min version... does it help explain why the theory of evolution can't and probably never will be considered a fact? user:z1nemo

In response to user:Mr.Fink - I will post link to partial review and revision with what I consider (at least slightly) improved language.user:z1nemoZ1nemo (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * These are standard arguments but which are unfortunately misinformed. A current scientific theory is the best model to explain the evidence that we have; that life evolves is the consensus among biologists.  There still are new discoveries and debates subsist in specific details, but that does not mean that half of biologists reject it or consider it merely a theory.  I strongly encourage you to carefully read the comment I previously left at your talk page and to read those articles.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also look at objections to evolution and creation evolution controversy which may be more appropriate in relation to criticism. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * --Moxy (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That, and, please be aware that the fact and theory of biological evolution are profoundly distinct from abiogenesis. Unless, of course, you can deign to explain how the exact understanding of how life on Earth came into existence is vitally necessary to extract information from the documented observation of transforming populations of Crucian carp into fancy goldfish breeds through a thousand years' worth of generations of selective breeding?  But, then again, even if you could explain, don't explain here, on the talkpage, which is WP:NOTAFORUM for such discussions.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you read Evolution as fact and theory yet? This isn't a forum where we discuss evolution or obsolete theories such as Spontaneous generation. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@user:Mr. Fink sorry, I ended up missing YOUR rewrite, which ended up over-posting one of mine and etc. etc. so I just figured I would grab yours from history and repost for you. My apologies. That was not intended as credential dropping, I'm not certain how I gave u that impression but I was just trying to establish that I have experience with science-related content. That's all. Trust me, if my goal was to impress members of the Internet community I would pick a different demographic (I'm assuming that this article will mostly be read by high-school kids trying to fake a research paper at the last minute because that's who REALLY reads about evolution in my experience). That did get a bit of a laugh on my end... I drive a Ford Focus and live in a sort of mediocre part of town. I don't have any illusions about how cool or important I am. As far as arcane threats of jail, never in a million years did I think that someone would read that and think I was implying that there was any threat if jail time over a Wikipedia post. But I AM probably obtuse. As far as my misnaming the other user earlier, just made a good old fashioned mistake, and didn't save the correction properly. That's all. As far as evolution being a "repeatedly established scientific fact" please, just read the Wikipedia entry for "Fact" in particular the Subsection labeled In Science - that's all I ask. Here's a pertinent sentence: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." In the end, the things that DO matter me is that we approach science with honesty and integrity and are conscious and honest about what we don't know (Which ends up being a whole lot) AND Wikipedia actually matters to me a great deal. Growing up in a family that didn't have the means to send me to the places I really wanted to go (probably space camp, that looked SO cool) Wiki was my best friend and freely taught me whatever I wanted to learn. I just want some other kid to have the opportunity to learn about something and decide what they think the truth is - without having someone tell them (falsely) "It's a FACT, KID! It's set in stone! User:z1nemo20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * z1nemo You seem to be looking for Abiogenesis. This is the article on evolution. On neither do we accept original research, or "research" from fringe theorists such as the most popular of the creationist. We don't "decide what we think is the truth". There is no controversy here. Your opinion is duly noted, but ultimately not worth very much verses basically the entirety of mainstream science. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, those of us who did a module in Philosophy of Science some decades ago recall that facts are indeed "things made", and nothing in science cannot be undone, even things like Newton's Laws which for centuries did seem to have been written in stone. However, evolution is about the most central thing in biology, on which Dobzhansky commented "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and he has only become more right about that with the passing decades. It's easy to imagine details being changed - happens all the time - but practically impossible to see how the fact that life has evolved could be replaced. But we are diverging from a basic pillar of Wikipedia: that we rely not on what is supposed to be true (we have no access to that), but on what is verifiable. And since we aren't high school kids, we know that means good secondary sources, of which we have more than enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@user:Doug Weller The only reason I brought spontaneous generation into the discussion was because, as Senor Fink so aptly pointed out, abiogenisis theory means that spontaneous generation is the only viable starting point for evolutionary processes. So if it doesn't work now, why did it then? You can't build a tower on a sand dune and then stand back an proclaim it to be without flaw. And as long as you're going to talk about selective breeding, can you selectively breed a goldfish into a monkey? Or a frog? Nope, always more goldfish. They might look a little different, but still goldfish. If you've read about evolution, then you know that Phylal or Species departure has never been observed. Transitional fossils have more often than not been faked or simply misinterpreted. In fact, it would seem that evolutionary stagnation is the only demonstrated state. But here's the kicker - I'm not saying thatit didn't happen. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. That's what makes it a theory. We don't know and we don't have the ability to verify findings. Consensus among biologists means nothing more than a bunch of people think that's what happened. But it's still a theory, and that's OK. user:z1nemoZ1nemo (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To repeat, our job at Wikipedia is to describe what people (here, biologists) agree on, from reliable sources. Had we been writing in 1830, no doubt we'd have described Cuvier's fixed world, with a section on transmutation of species with inheritance of acquired characteristics. Forget the talk about just not knowing and so on, that's not our business, and it mustn't be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@user:chiswick chap Not our business? To admit that something can't be proven? Ummm? Seriously? Now you are spouting random unrelated nonsense about the fixed world model that has no relevance? Explain to me when and how evolution was demonstrated as "proven fact" so thoroughly and tied up in a neat little bow and I'll concede. Until then, identifying the things that we don't know isn't "our business" it's our responsibility as scientists. The number of times that so many scientists "all were in complete agreement" and it turned out the only thing more complete than their agreement was how wrong they were is staggering. The problem here is that you have taken this one on with and ironclad and religious fervor and willfully blinded yourself to all the glaring deficiencies - so who will you listen who says otherwise? Dobhansky was a staunch and fanatic evolutionist who would probably pat you on the back. Could provide a half dozen quotes from other prominent scientists who disagree with him and say evolution is a complete fairy tale, but don't want to waste time writing letters to blind men. Enjoy the faithful and lasting cultivation of your religious beliefs. user:z1nemo 21:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC) P.s. I heard that Dobhansky proclaimed that it's a proven fact that if you drill a hole through the ice and jump into the Dnieper in January, you will instantly become a millionaire and spontaneously unlock the secrets of transhumanism as you discover how to reach a more evolved state. Let me know how objective testing of his claims pans out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1nemo (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we are not doing science here at Wikipedia, we are writing the science part of an encyclopedia, which is wholly different. If you don't get this, it's time for you to read up about it, or leave quietly please. By the way, you are not allowed to attack any other user, for religion, lack of it, or anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just biological evolution, right?
The word "evolution" is a common English word with many uses outside of biology. Should we acknowledge that this article isn't about those other uses, by opening with
 * " In biology, evolution is change in the heritable..."

or something similar? I was going to just be bold and add this as a minor non-controversial clarification, but since this is such a hot article, I thought it best to ask first. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * points Evolution (disambiguation)--Mr Fink (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse of Darwinism
I'd have expected to see a section on what Julian Huxley called the Eclipse of Darwinism (before the Modern synthesis) in the History. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222094258/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18310184/evolutionary-theory/vol-01/Vol.1%2CNo.1%2C1-30%2CL.%20Van%20Valen%2C%20A%20new%20evolutionary%20law..pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18310184/evolutionary-theory/vol-01/Vol.1%2CNo.1%2C1-30%2CL.%20Van%20Valen%2C%20A%20new%20evolutionary%20law..pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511235639/http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Rethinking-sociobiology.pdf to http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Rethinking-sociobiology.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323050059/http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior to http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Add relevant video link?
Should the following relevant video link (from NYT & Retro Report) be added to the Evolution article ("External links" section?) − and/or - some other related article(s)? =>



Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No thanks! Better off without such things, our job is to tell the plain scientific story just as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe that it would be appropriate for one of:
 * Creation and evolution in public education
 * Objections to evolution
 * Creation–evolution controversy
 * — Paleo Neonate  – 22:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with PaleoNeonate. This article is no place for that video link. This article is about the biology of evolution, not the social ramifications or effects.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  19:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Images-Timeline worthy to add - or not?
FWIW - a very basic images-timeline has been created (see copy above) that may (or may not) be worthy to add to certain appropriate articles - as an improvement - and as a way to better communicate with the average Wikipedia reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - so far - adding the images-timeline, in good faith, to a few evolution-related articles has been reverted, without discussion, including 1, 2, 3 - other editors may (or may not) agree with the reverts - nonetheless - articles may be suggested that may be appropriate for the images-timeline - for my part, it's *entirely* ok to rv,rm,mv,ce any of my edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors of course - hope this helps in some way - Comments/Suggestions Welcome - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 300 million years ago was the Carboniferous right? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - seems the Carboniferous was 298.9 to 358.9 mya; the Permian was 251.9 to 298.9 mya - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BRIEF (belated) Followup: Took a closer look at the date of the earliest dinosaurs - seems 240 mya may be a more reasonable estimated date (than the 300 mya presented earlier) - please see => "Evolution of dinosaurs" & "Nyasasaurus" - Thanks again for your comment - and suggestion re the dinosaur date - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article already has quite a few images and a timeline that covers this, I don’t think it belongs. I understand the readability aspect, but this over-simplifies things a bit too much.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  04:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Andrew Z. Colvin, it isn't needed and wouldn't fit in here or in many other evolution articles. Perhaps it has a use over at Simple Wikipedia, but I am concerned at its inherent linearity, which shouts "Progress!" and Orthogenesis, the non-standard view that evolution progresses along straight and predetermined lines from "lower" to "higher". Essentially that's a Medieval worldview, the Great chain of being, from the inorganic world at the bottom (here, the right) up to "Man" (left) and on up to angels with God at the top. It really isn't a great help to have that stuff all over dozens of supposedly modern and unbiased evolution articles, so I'm opposed to its use anywhere on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - well-stated imo - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - however - seems there should be some very basic visual way of presenting a simple overview of Life on Earth in order to better WP:BALANCE, in appropriate articles, the 10k yo worldview held (afaik) by many (40% adults in US?) - suggestions welcome  - (as to "lower to higher": perhaps "simple to complex" would be better? (see graph on right) - my related cmts on talk-abiogenesis; my somewhat related NYT cmts ) (as to the Geologic Record: seems my  created Geologic templates (2016) may have been a bit too detailed for Wikipedia at the time they were posted) - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Simple to complex still carries the progressionist, orthogenetic baggage around with it. What the graph and timelines don't show is that the "simple" Archaea and Bacteria contain far more phyla than everything else put together, and have survived and diversified all the while. As soon as you say "at date X 'complex' life evolves" you are implying stages of progress. What's actually been happening is not a linear sequence with any onward, upward direction, but a many-fold branching in an ever-increasing number of directions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If it goes anywhere, maybe Introduction to evolution. I agree with Chiswick Chap in that it shows unrealistic progress. Furthermore, it leaves out a great number of animal groups, represents mammals twice, and ignores the most abundant organisms on Earth: insects. Ending with humans is a rather anthropocentric conception of evolution as if all things eventually, with purpose, give rise to us. I’d argue that it represents the opposite of the evolution of life on earth. It mimics the widely disregarded idea of the great-chain-of-being. It ignored the important aspect of the branching tree of life.  Andrew Z. Colvin  •  Talk  17:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As if we wanted to introduce people to evolution with a wrong conception of what it does. In case anyone has any lurking attachment to the idea of progress in evolution, they should consult . Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BRIEF Followup - yes - also agree with recent comments - my purpose with the timeline (albeit somewhat simplified) was to provide the uninitiated (most Wikipedia readers?) with a stepping-stone-of-sorts, via of wikilinks, to articles of cited details, and then perhaps, to the responsible scientific literature, including more sophisticated (branching?) views of evolution - perhaps there's better ways to accomplish this - re anthropocentrism: reminds me of another of my NYT comments - which may suggest a related anthropocentric bias of a less considered sort - iac - Thanks again for the recent comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Like this image, perhaps, if the 1837 portrayal is "more sophisticated". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the images-timeline is interpretable - originally, the images-timeline was intended to be a selected series of notable events in the timeline of life on earth - and useful, as a navigational aid, via of wikilinks, to those events - nonetheless - as discussed above, the timeline could be interpreted as a statement of evolution, although not originally intended as such, esp in evolution-related articles - however - the images-timeline may be understood to be less a statement of evolution in articles that are less related to evolution I would think - and perhaps useful to those articles, as a navigational aid, as presented above - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. The clear and ever-present interpretation of a straight line of images is that evolution proceeds from "low" and "primitive" in a linear fashion towards "higher" and more "advanced" forms. It does not, it branches; and the "simple, low" life-forms (Archaea, Bacteria) form the overwhelming majority both in numbers and in diversity. Worse, the clear implication is that evolution proceeds in such a straight line because it is directed to do so by some life force or deity in a guided process. It does not, it is opportunistic and unguided. Far from being "useful" in any science article, progressionist sequence imagery is actively unhelpful and counter-productive. Readers can, unfortunately, very readily take any sequence to mean progress, and indeed a common usage of the word "evolution" is as a synonym for progress, as in the evolution of the jet engine. We must therefore take extreme care not to mislead. We should not use anything that implies that we endorse such views anywhere on Wikipedia.


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a home for artwork, and the purpose of artwork is not to decorate articles. Rather, we should be looking at the articles and finding ways, if any are needed, to put across their message as clearly as possible. Since we agree that it is dangerous to use sequence imagery which gives a totally wrong, misleading, and confusing message, it is time to put the progressionist sequence type of images to bed, once and for all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments - yes - entirely agree - however - seems a particular point-of-view is being presented re "a straight line of images" - which, in the end, may (or may not ) be the only interpretation of this particular series of images - afaik - the noted events actually happened - and - at the dates noted (as best as can be determined at the moment) - these are simply sourced facts of the matter - and notable ones - wikilinked to more cited factual details for further clarification, if the reader is interested - this seems to be a worthy purpose of Wikipedia - to present facts and clarify such facts with other relevant sourced facts - in a WP:NPOV way - interpreting facts with a particular point-of-view may be an entirely different matter - (as to Progress: reminds me of another of my published comments which may be somewhat relevant ) (as to Artwork: images may be a helpful way to better communicate facts and related ideas - maybe moreso for some than others) - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - they're greatly appreciated - Comments by other editors are also welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * in that case there already is a (more specific) timeline, albeit with less pictures, in the article . For future reference, asterisks and italics are used to sound sarcastic when typing <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - astericks and italics used for emphasis - now rm (to rm possible unintended slights) - yes - agreed re timelines - (ie, &  &  ) - which I created and/or substantially developed some time ago - the above images-timeline and related others (with pictures) arose, to some extent, from these particular timelines - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

How about a gallery of transitional species? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion - may consider transitional species further at some later opportunity - thank you nonetheless - it's appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of diagrams and photographs, having adding many myself, but they have to convey the correct message. Darwin's own illustration shows that the task is possible. The discussion would be much improved if it were free of the trivialisation created by exclamation marks, asterisks, random exhortations to enjoy ourselves, and smiley faces, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and opinions - yes - agreed - seems diagrams and photographs may be worthy improvements to articles - as well as - worthy additions to discussions - of course - other editors may (or may not) agree w/ a particular instance - and/or - share the same pov - nonetheless - hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should the image of, for example, mammals depict one from today or one from 200 mya? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems the first "true" mammal may have been Juramaia - image => File:Juramaia NT.jpg - for my part, the image of the rabbit in the images-timeline above is better - ie, sufficiently symbolic (and easily understood) of mammals in general. Drbogdan (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning for including an image of a modern rabbit above the text "200 Mya" is precisely the objections that other editors seem to have for including this gallery of images: it's attempting to present a complex topic imprecisely. Why is simplification of this topic even necessary? There are many, many articles about this topic that readers can gleam information from and a topic being complex shouldn't inherently require simplification, especially if inaccurate or misleading. Reversions that you linked to at the top of this section were entirely appropriate and should not need a discussion to reveal consensus… the gallery was not relevant to the articles and especially in the sections that you placed them in. I'm disappointed to have found these images just now on History of Earth, in place since mid-Nov at the very bottom of the article with absolutely no context. Interpreting facts with a particular point-of-view is not the issue here.

I don't believe that italics used for emphasis is inherently sarcastic. It is, however, probably unnecessary in the beginnings of a conversation and more appropriate when someone is not getting the point – see my use in the paragraph above. – Rhinopias (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW - Thank you for your comments - please understand that it's entirely ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce any of my edits - including the gallery above - and regardless of any reasoning I may present - esp if there's WP:CONSENSUS from other editors of course - no problem whatsoever - if, for example, others agree to substitute an image of a Juamaia for the image of a Rabbit instead in the gallery above, to make the gallery more accurate, that's entirely ok with me - after all - according to WP:OWN: All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. - afaik - the test of an edit is if other editors agree the edit is ok - and represents an improvement to the article - as to the History of Earth article: an image overview of Life on Earth seemed to be appropriate to me at the time to a History of Earth - this edit has now been rv - seems the gallery may have been in the article for a long time - and - afaik - may (or may not?) qualify for WP:EDITCONSENSUS - nonetheless - I offer no challenge to the rv - and in some ways - based on the above talk-page discussion(s), happen to agree with it atm - hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:EDITCONSENSUS doesn't specify a time frame in which an unchallenged or un-built-upon edit becomes consensus. It's elaborated in WP:SILENCE that "silence is the weakest form of consensus". A more elaborate edit summary than "relevant adds/adjs" to more clearly indicate the addition you were making to these articles may have attracted attention sooner, but it can't be expected that all additions made by established editors on lower profile articles are challenged—if they're going to be challenged—in a pre-determined amount of time.
 * This is going off topic. My purpose in commenting was to simply express my support for the position that other editors have voiced. Rhinopias (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - agree with your comments - including your suggestion for better edit summaries, although many of my edits (maybe most?) contain summaries that can be very detailed => one very recent example. Drbogdan (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Drbogdan, I cannot even parse most of your comments, but please stop spamming random sets of images across pages. Try to work on article content, and if you must focus on imagery, try to limit your additions to images that are actually relevant to the article topic, and pick them on a case-by-case basis, based on what images are already present on a given page. Your edit to KIC 8462852 was fine, with or without summary, as it was relevant to the actual topic of the article in question. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel I need to expand and re-emphasize my suggestion that started this particular thread. Of the images originally suggested, some pics are not directly related to evolution. "Earth" and "water" even pre-date all evolution (this article is about biological evolution only, not planetary etc.).  Of the pics involving biology, they emphasize more "complete" forms, where evolution slows down or even stalls (pics of animals accepted even by anti-evolution Young Earth creationists).  To better demonstrate active evolution specifically, I've suggested showing transitional species (ones defining the start of a new clade, rather than its high water mark).  The suggestion of using first mammal rather than a rabbit is a example of that.
 * To add to this idea, perhaps include pics of notable moments in evolution, such as Cambrian explosion or Extinction events. In general, extinctions show more about evolution than highlighting the members of the very few surviving clades. (While the Oxygen Holocaust was an extinction event, and an Oxygen pic was proposed, I think it would be hard to get a pic showing how a nice blue sky almost killed everything.)  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : it would be really helpful if you could take a look at the concept of Orthogenesis (directed evolution) a little, maybe reading around it a bit, to get some background here. Ideas like "completeness" are at best poorly defined, at worst surrogates for "progress" and the existence of "higher" forms. We really mustn't allow the anti-evolutionists to paint us into a totally erroneous corner by making it look as if we think that evolution runs along straight-line, predetermined railway tracks. Actually, it branches freely in all directions, and early forms such as Archaea and Bacteria still dominate the world's species list. Anything that says "at such-and-such a date progress went upwards a notch to achieve the next step of progress towards vertebrates and then mammals and then humans (and then angels, archangels and finally God, presumably) is unacceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Yes, I know all this.  But not every reader does, and these generic pics show only generic concepts, thus we should be aware of what they promote.  These pics are designed for those who aren't experts, agreed?  If so, we need to choose pics that help those who might have some very common misconceptions.  If not, then we do not need these pics at all.  If showing simple pics of very basic concepts isn't good, so be it; let's drop this and remove them.  I'd be fine with that.  Please let's discuss the purpose of the pics and how to achieve that, rather than how to be helpful.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  19:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it; and indeed, not every reader does, so it's vital we don't show "generic concepts" which are broad, sweeping, widely applicable, and wrong. It's not so much the choice of pics as the choice of format: a straight line unfortunately tells the uninformed human brain that here be progress. So we mustn't use a line. Non-linear formats like cladograms are absolutely fine, and they can be illustrated with photos if desired. Single photos beside the text are fine too, of course. It's the "Progress" (with capital P) that's the problem here. So I'd agree, let's just remove them, we're far better off without them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We could remove any progression (random order?), but any line of pics does tend to imply an order, even if none was intended. If we can't avoid implying misconceptions to non-experts, and the pics are only for non-experts, then agree on removal.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  20:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Cladogram pic?
Seems that, based on the above discussion, the following cladogram (with images) (featured in the Ape article) may be an example of a more acceptable image presentation.

Other examples found (so far) might be the ones in the Hymenoptera article - afaik these examples could be templates-of-sorts for other efforts. Drbogdan (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And yet that picture still manages to convey the subtle message of progress by the vertical placement of the images combined with their horizontal placement. The simple fact is, ALL extant species are equally "evolved".  All species alive today are the result of same amount of something like 4.3 billion years of evolution.  To suggest, however subtly, anything else does our readers a great disservice. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nick Thorne has it exactly right, it is easily the most misleading cladogram I've ever seen, by a large margin. was correct with "any line of pics does tend to imply an order, even if none was intended", and I'd add "even if lip-service is paid to phylogenetic branching". This sorry apology for a cladogram looks exactly like a ladder rising from the "lesser apes" (ah, they must be lower on the evolutionary ladder, then) to the "great apes" (not a clade) and onwards and upwards to the pinnacle of evolution, H. not very sapiens. All the richness and diversity, all the branches which went extinct, all traces of subtle and long-lived adaptations, all are swept away to form a disgraceful great ape chain of being. Dr Bogdan, one word, please: STOP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF - to be clear - I had nothing whatsoever to do with creating the cladograms noted above - others did (one example) - perhaps someone with the suitable coding ability could present (WP:JUSTDOIT?) an actual example of the type of envisioned cladogram (with images?) that would be acceptable? Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed you made it, which was a reasonable guess given that you put it here, and I assumed you thought it acceptable, also a likely guess given that you put it here. My opinion of cladograms of that sort you know already, and I'm very glad you don't approve of this particular one either. My opinion of the harm done by scattering linear sequences of species or lifeforms across multiple evolution articles you also know. I remain concerned that you are still minded to try to insert such things, and I'm happy to explain why they're harmful to anyone who needs an explanation. Decent cladograms show rich branching with no implication that one branch is "higher" than any other. There are many examples, try at Teleost for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - actually, we're more in agreement with all this than you may understand atm - just trying to clarify our shared goals - yes - your noted Teleost helps. Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What are those goals? Adding pics or diagrams can certainly benefit an article, but they do not inherently do so.  Such supporting materials are meant to support something in the article, such as to support the explanation of a particular complex or abstract text-dense concept in a more recognizable way.  Here, I'm missing the specific improvement being sought.  Can we state what concept, idea, issue or such is being targeted for adding supporting material?  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK - primary goal is to present article content as well as possible - with or without imagery, diagrams, related supporting materials or the like. Drbogdan (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, what content, specifically? If it's the whole of evolution together, that's going to be hard to capture in pics.  What points would pics better cover than text?  We need a clear statement of the issue(s), or at least some examples of points, before we can usefully discuss it.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  15:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:A D Monroe III - Thanks - seems my recent efforts with the images-timeline above could have been better - although my templates ( / / ) seemed to have been more acceptable - ideas from other editors are welcome - my very recent efforts are elsewhere at the moment - ie, if interested => GW170817 (gravitational wave) / KIC 8462852 (oddly dimming star) / ULAS J1342+0928 (most distant quasar/supermassive black hole newly detected). Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it still feels, despite protestations that Brexit-like we all agree really, that this is a solution in search of a problem. Wikipedia's evolution articles are clearly written, well cited, and very carefully illustrated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I agree with this as well atm. Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I see evident good faith and competence from all here, and have found that assumed by everyone involved. Also, I actually think the article could benefit from a gallery of some sort, but also that it's difficult to get right.  Evolution is a controversial subject (for reasons that escape me) with a lot of misunderstandings flung about.  Some wide-focused pics that address some of these could help, but they also could make things worse by "dumbing-down" evolution.  So, yeah, agree on setting this aside ATM.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017
Evolustion is still just a theory and nowhere in the title or opening paragraph is it labeled as such. It is a belief and a theory. 68.44.148.212 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC) ❌ please read the format for this type of request at the link marked "edit request" above. Edaham (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also check the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161112121623/http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2016/info/ac to http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2016/info/ac

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

More Helpful Disambiguation
I would suggest renaming this article as "Biological Evolution". I would also suggest a reference to Evolution as fact and theory, because it discusses the term Evolution additionally in non-biological terms, whereas the current links at the top are mainly regarding biological evolution. If there were to be a page named just "Evolution", it should cover more topics that just biological evolution, IMHO. I think the current "Evolution (disambiguation)" link covers too many items and is not as useful as would be desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.98.161 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME says that we should call things by their normal name - most people would understand that evolution generally refers to the evolution of life forms, and I'd expect that most people searching for 'Evolution' would expect to arrive at this page. I agree that the disambiguation page is very long, but I'm not sure there's much to be done about that - the word is used in lots of different areas. It's not excessively difficult to scroll down and find the particular article you would be looking for. Girth Summit (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this has been proposed in the past and the consensus has declined the change. I agree with the consensus and believe WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Yes, the term evolution is used in many ways, but the primary usage of the term is in reference to biological evolution. <i style="color: Green">Andrew Z. Colvin</i> • <i style="color: Green">Talk</i> 17:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)