Talk:Introduction to evolution

WP:BRD & related
Hey! I did improve structure and readability recently and got a revert-war on my tail;) You can see it through (bottom) I did very light edits to content, nothing serious, rather due to understanding and grasping the contents by going through one topic at a time from top to bottom with repeats to better learn the stuff. This is an intro, right? Header is now better in concordance with main body. I differentiated between theory of evolution and proof of evolution in experiment (sligthly - an accademic necessity too often neglected!). Dear valued wikipedia-co-autors, you may also decide to help me get (part or all) of my good changes through. Thanks-a-lot, yours --78.51.211.140 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to IP's version: --Neil N  talk to me 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help - that was quick! Highly appreciate it! --78.51.211.140 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - another way (perhaps better) of reviewing the actual (rather substantial imo) IP Edits => CLICK HERE - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple overview changes
I've reworded the "Simple overview" section in the following ways (red items are originals; green/more-indented items are new; comments in brackets):


 * [Added an introductory sentence so the section doesn't start with (and consist solely of) a list.]

I hope others will accept my reasoning on the more significant changes. - dcljr (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * [No change to first item; second item links idea of growing population to that of differential survival.]
 * [An offspring may have one (asexual) or two (sexual) parents; also "the" doesn't make sense for first mention of offspring.]
 * [Minor wording change.]
 * [Described change is not guaranteed, only probable.]
 * [Clarify that the changes happen over generations.]
 * [Speciation does not necessarily depend on physical separation.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]
 * [Minor wording change.]
 * [Described change is not guaranteed, only probable.]
 * [Clarify that the changes happen over generations.]
 * [Speciation does not necessarily depend on physical separation.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]
 * [Described change is not guaranteed, only probable.]
 * [Clarify that the changes happen over generations.]
 * [Speciation does not necessarily depend on physical separation.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]
 * [Speciation does not necessarily depend on physical separation.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]
 * [Speciation does not necessarily depend on physical separation.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]
 * [Wrap it up in a bow.]

Emphasis
ISTM that a lot of people have a mistaken impression about evolution, and this article misses the opportunity to clear it up. Many think that evolution is only something that took place in the distant past, and is only concerned with fossils. (1) As this article is written, it begins with a discussion of the past. It could begin with something like: "Evolution is something which we see happening throughout the world of life ... And we see the results of it having happened in the past in today's comparative anatomy and biogeography ... And we see how life has changed in major ways over long spans of time ..." (2) The first extended description of evolution can leave the impression that evolution is natural selection. There are other mechanisms involved, notably genetic drift and sexual selection, and it is not out of the question that there might be other mechanisms. I don't intend to make any changes on my own. I'm just bringing up some thoughts. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only is genetic drift mentioned (twice) in the lead section, there's an entire section by that name already in the article. It does seem, however, that the article doesn't mention sexual selection at all (not by that name, certainly — there is one instance of the phrase "mate selection"). The sexual selection article places it firmly as a subset of natural selection, but this article should probably at least mention it (by name). As for the first point, having not read the entire article before replying, I can only say that the direct (present-day) observation of speciation is mentioned both in the lead section and the Species section. - dcljr (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Introduction to 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/20141227004122/http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.php to http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.php

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) 20:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Science template
Since we already have the more specific Evolutionary Biology template, I agree that the Science template is too much. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That applies to most all the other sciences too. We really don't need more navboxes hogging the (very scarce) real estate at the tops of articles. Navbars are far less intrusive, but frankly I can't see any need for one with the apparent purpose of what's just gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Paring down the lead section
I think the lead of this article is way too long, and much of it is redundant or off-topic for what should be an introduction to "introduction to evolution". I propose that we make the following cuts:

This material is either covered in the previous paragraph, or would fit better integrated with a main section. Danstronger (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Cut most of the second paragraph. I suggest "The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years.[1][2][3] The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago.[4][5][6]", and then straight into "Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life ...".  The extensive material about first life forms is not about evolution.
 * 2) Cut what is now the fourth paragraph, "The forces of evolution are most evident..."
 * 3) Cut what is now the fifth paragraph, "The majority of genetic..."