Talk:Introduction to evolution/Archive 7

Karen Carr Triceratops
So, after looking in the archives, it seems that the only reason that this image is on this page is because someone likes her art and because "Dinosaurs are cool!" I move to remove the image as it has no relation to the caption text and the article. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... The article benefits from a strong lead image. Do you have anything better in mind? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never liked that picture anyways. Sure, get rid of it, but only if there's another picture to put in it's place as we should have a picture in the lead.Farsight001 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The selection of images were in no way based on “dinosaurs being cool” nor because of any passion for Karen Carr's art. An easy assumption I guess one can make when reviewing ancient dialog out of the context of the moment. The lead art - as the article - was developed with the concept of being more inviting and visually less intimidating than the main article; which had transformed into something slightly short of a master thesis. The selection was in part because dinosaurs as ancient life forms are the “poster children” for the evolutionary concept. Be it the Smithsonian and the displays on evolutionary theory or Ken Ham and his Creationism museum – dinosaurs are excellent representatives of the fossil connection, mass extinctions, natural selection, etc… all evolutionary themes. Rather than dumping the picture; I suggest rephrasing the caption to better connect those ideas with the picture. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How about one of these images? The second is comparable to the current image, but has more of a "diversity of species" theme. —Ruud 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use any of those pictures, though thank you for looking. The only one that looks fitting is the last one, except that it's not accurate to evolutionary theory.  After reading what user JimmyButler said above, I have rethought my position.  I think the picture is quite fine now.Farsight001 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would certainly not use the last of those four - it appears to show a progression to an "end product" that is entirely inappropriate. I also agree with JimmyButler. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps the icon used on evolution-stub should also be changed? —Ruud 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So the reason for it being there is because it's pretty and inviting? I thought the point of including images was to enhance the content of the page, not make it more inviting for people passing the page at a glance?  I'm missing any link to evolution beyond dinosaurs being subject to the laws of nature.  As for the caption of the current picture, it really doesn't have anything to do with the image.  It doesn't illustrate how genetic changes have influenced the chance of survival of either the Triceratops or the Compsognathus, at least not in any obvious way.  The "Darwin's finches" picture would be good or even just a picture of a finch with a caption mentioning Darwin's use of them in his research.  A picture of finches would still be inviting and would be more relevant to the subject, though I still think one of Darwin's sketches would be better. UncannyGarlic (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think UncannyGarlic is raising a valid point. While attractive, the triceratops picture might be better on an article discussing how fate can overwhelm evolution, and the caption, while admirable, is not related to the picture. I don't like the fact that the triceratops picture is pure imagination -- I wouldn't want readers to think that the article was of a similar nature. How about this caption:
 * "Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately-related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends." Charles Darwin ref

on the finches picture? --Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds and looks good to me. I like the use of a Darwin quote from the page containing that image as it gives the image good context. UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ? So the reason for it being there is because it's pretty and inviting?  This is reminiscent of the quote mining by creationist. Yes it is both --- but the rational you failed to include was: Be it the Smithsonian and the displays on evolutionary theory or Ken Ham and his Creationism museum – dinosaurs are excellent representatives of the fossil connection, mass extinctions, natural selection, etc… all evolutionary themes.. The implication that a significant group of editors selected the picture because it is pretty is becoming insulting.  If we only wanted pretty and inviting I would have voted for this: [[Image:Angelina jolie lugar.jpg|thumb|upright|Jolie at a photo op in [[Washington, D.C.]] in 2005]]. Granted I am biased; since I solicited the picture from Mrs. Carr; so I will bend to the will of others. However, enough of the "Its there because its pretty rhetoric! I have also made an attempt at matching the caption to the specific text in the article regarding extinction as a natural process.  Natural selection does not lead to perfection; dramatic changes in the environment often lead to mass extinctions, as in the case of the dinosaurs nearly 65 million years ago.  Again rather than dumping it; maybe a more appropriate legend can be adapted.--JimmyButler (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem awfully defensive. He's raising a valid point. Really, what do dinosaurs have to do with evolution? Its a pretty random picture, and you could justify slapping any old animal picture on the top in that manner. Really, I tend to lean towards using either a picture of the finches or the "tree of life". And being used by a creationism museum is a good reason not to use it - if its used by a creationism museum, then it probably is misleading and people have the wrong idea about it and what it represents. While I think the proposed caption is superior, I think something which actually directly relates to evolution as a picture would be better. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a better question, does the Karen Carr image with caption better illustrate and relate to evolution than the finches picture with accompanying quote from Darwin describing it? If the Darwin quote is too intimidating then it could be rephrased and if the finches drawing isn't "inviting" enough then a photo of multiple finches could be used in it's place. The new caption for the Karen Carr image is more relevant but seems more relevant to an article on mass extinction than evolution, despite the attempt to relate it to natural selection.  A better example of what you're getting at would be an image of a Mammoth, as it's a species that was adapted to an environment which died due to a combination of a change in environment and overhunting by humans, possibly something like .  Simply, the Karen Carr painting is not the best lead image for the article.  As for dinosaurs being poster children for evolution, I'd have to disagree and say that humans are far more so, with the image of the ape turning into man basically being an iconic representation of evolution, despite it's inaccuracies. UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This has got a little heated. Let me clarify that when I said "UncannyGarlic is raising a valid point" I was not suggesting that the language used was appropriate. For the reasons I mentioned, I was finding virtue in the conclusion, and I agree with JimmyButler that the argument about "pretty and inviting" was not well expressed.
 * I was very pleased to find the quote from Darwin ("Seeing this gradation..." above), and I thought it would be an excellent addition to the article, particularly in view of the reference which leads to an attractive rendition of Darwin's "Beagle" journal, and Darwin's 200th birthday. However, I have just stumbled across Darwin's Finches and see that Wikipedia already has the image and the quote, so I'm no longer motivated to want it here. --Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A little heated ... yes - Angelina has the same effect on me! I was actually hoping her image might be "inviting" and steer more people to the discussion. As stated, I am grossly biased; hence the willingness to not protract my defensive stance to a deletion of the image. I was hoping that the edit to the legend aligns the image to the text - a weakness pointed out in this thread. Any further defense on my part would focus on the benefits of image selection in terms of audience alignment (National Geographic vs Scientific America). A meaningless discussion if the image misrepresents the concept of evolution. In all fairness, the picture selection was never random - but I will let that personal affront go! Slap up whatever you feel appropriate; I defer to the expertise of others.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaurs definitely depict evolution; it is an example of nature filling some evolutionary niche. I agree that the caption of the Carr picture could be improved. We did have the finch picture before, and I am not sure that the finch picture can be adequately explained in a sentence or two. The finch picture might be good to include, but not as the lead picture. For example, I think that the finch picture is far less compelling than the Carr picture, although if you understand what is in the finch picture it certainly has a lot to do with evolution. However, this is an introductory article, and we have to choose our pictures (particularly our lead picture) accordingly. The picture of the primates turning into humans feeds the worst possible misconceptions about human beings and is sort of a trite picture. It might have a place in the article about the history of evolutionary thought. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Macronaria scrubbed enh.jpg|thumb|250px|Several [[macronarian]] Sauropods, from left to right Camarasaurus, Brachiosaurus, Giraffatitan, and Euhelopus]]I fail to see how the finch picture cannot be explained within a couple sentences, heck the Darwin does just that. I do see a possible argument for not using the same lead image on two different articles and for rephrasing the Darwin quote to be more accessible.  If folks are really stuck on keeping a dinosaur image for the lead image then let's at least change it to something that more clearly relates to the article.  Possibly something like the Macronaria image has more promise (I'd suggest one that is a compilation of a family or genus), though I'd say that it's less clear and more challenging to caption than the finches image.  Also compilation images of dinosaurs runs into the problem of dinosaurs being classified by morphology rather than DNA. UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

False statement and NPOV
I read through this article. For the most part it is pretty well written. There is one statement that caught my attention - because it is false and in conflict with No original research:

"It is generally accepted amongst biologists that the unit of selection in evolution is the organism, and that natural selection serves to either enhance or reduce the reproductive potential of an individual."

This is an opinion and original research. Show me a published paper that states this concept? Stephen J. Gould, Edward O. Wilson and many other notable biologists and philosophers who write on the topic of evolution - including Haldane - say otherwise. For a recent counter claims to this antiquated and often repeated argument - see:

http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/Rethinking%20sociobiology.pdf

Or you can read Gould and Lloyd's discussion on multi-level selection theory:

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/21/11904.full

There are numerous experiments that refuted the claim that the individual (or the gene) as the sole unit of selection. Richard Dawkin's originally promoted this concept - but even in his book "The Extended Phenotype" it is clear that he supports an extended view of natural selection occurring beyond the individual.

Realizing that this is an introductory article, I have started to rework this, but it needs simplifying:

"The unit of selection in evolution has transgressed from Charles Darwin's organisms, to Dawkin's selfish genes, and up to a multi-level views of selection occurring among species and even at higher levels of organization such as genus and beyond. Modern evolutionary theory states that the causal unit of natural selection is a Darwinian individual. In Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene", his focus was aimed toward the gene as replicator. Genes, however, interact proximately with other genes, proteins, and the extended environment. Evolution is the product of differential extinction and proliferation of Darwinian interactors resulting in the differential perpetuation of such replicators. Darwinian interactors are the focal point of natural selection, that is the relations among individuals. Natural selection works or imparts its influence through the interacting relations among Darwinian individuals. A Darwinian individual can be a gene, cell line, organism, or species. It is during the interaction among such individuals that the acquired adaptations serve or highlight their utility. Darwinian individuals survive or perish either through adaptations or neutral random events that ultimately shapes the tree of life." Comments??Thompsma (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, but way too much detail. How about "The simplest unit of selection in evolution is the organism, in this case natural selection serves to either enhance or reduce the reproductive potential of an individual. Other levels of selection are possible, such as species selection, but are not so well-understood." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This point is covered in a bit more detail in the final paragraph of Evolution, could you have a look at that section and see what you think? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The common meaning of "transgress" is "infringe or go beyond the bounds of (a moral principle or other established standard of behavior)". I wonder if "progress", "advance", "change" or "expand" might understood more easily by our readers. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - transgress isn't the correct word. This does need to be simplified. I realized when I typed this that it was very wordy and not at all suited for an introductory page. I quickly wrote this out as I re-read through the Wilson & Wilson and Gould & Lloyd papers - which are mental roller coasters of Darwinian terminology. I like Tim Vickers attempt to simplify this - but what is written is incorrect. Nowhere do I read that other levels of selection '...are not so well-understood.' The topic is well understood - it has received much attention and there have been books written on it - starting with Charles Darwin's book on Decent of Man:

"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe . . . an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."

Perhaps we could include this quote to start off this section? There has never been empirical evidence in support of the reductionist 'gene' as the main unit of selection - it was only reasoned in the 1960's that group selection was less important. As a result JSB Haldanes kin selection provided the dominant explanation for examples of altruism, such as social bees dying after they loose their sting to protect the colony. The mathematics of Hamilton for inclusive fitness theory originally adopted the assumption that values of fitness were related to degree of relatedness, but this was later revised (by Hamilton) to include any positive relationship among genes, not just genes of similar identity by descent. In other words, altruistic traits do not require identical or similar genetic survivors to remain in the group for altruism to occur. Mathematically, all that is required is positive interactions for selection to exert its influence.

Perhaps using the Darwin quote - this section could also say something like the following:

Richard Dawkins talks about interactors in The Extended Phenotype - he discusses his concepts using fictional computer animals made up of a series of repeated of body segments. If all the segments are green - the organism is camouflaged. A gene 'turns on' (mutates) in one of the segments turning it orange and the bug is visibly eaten. If there are two bugs, one is green, the other is orange, it may reduce green's fitness to be in proximity of the orange bug. The bugs and their color traits are interacting in a group environment. Individuals and body parts must work together as a group. Group selection theory provides an explanation for altruistic and cooperative behaviours. For example, a sentinel Meerkat. It is costly for a Meerkat to expend energy keeping watch out for other Meerkats who can relax. Costly behaviour to the sentinel could evolve through one of two means. Either the Meerkat is related and its genes survive through its brothers and sisters should it be killed in the line of duty, or the altruistic trait evolves as selection exerts its influence at the level of the group which benefits from taking turns on sentinal duty. Empirical evidence shows that kin selection and group selection explain different examples of altruistic or cooperative behavior. Paleontologists (e.g., Stephen J. Gould) also measure natural selection occurring through the differential survivability in much broader groups, including species and genus, to mathematically explain the extinction and survivability patterns recorded in the fossil record. Species, organisms, cell-lines, and genes are examples of Darwinian individuals because natural selection can impart its influence at any one of these levels. A Darwinian individual has a beginning and an end, it inherits traits and characteristics, it interacts, and it is capable of differential reproduction and survivability.

I'm a wordy person - so someone feel free to cut, edit, revise and insert. I might have changed the Dawkin's example a bit - it has been over ten years since I read The Extended Phenotype. I can provide references for the other information and will insert as needed.Thompsma (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for directing me to Evolution - read it and it gives a good simple explanation. I'll think this over and see if I can come up with something simpler as well.Thompsma (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That section was included to point out the differing views on the mechanisms behind evolution; not to suggest that one was more accurate than another. Perhaps merely changing the opening line to:


 * "Historically it was generally accepted amongst biologists that the unit of selection in evolution was the organism, and that natural selection served to either enhance or reduce the reproductive potential of an individual. However.....


 * This is then followed by the more modern and contrasting views proposed by Dawkins and Gould. I'm of course, assuming that "historically" evolution focused on the individual organisms success. Again the goal of this section was to emphasize that there are varying views within the theory and that Evolution is not dogmatic. Regardless of the solution; please be concise - overburding the article with excessive detail defeats the purpose. In fact, deletions may sometimes better serve that goal than expansions. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, levels such as species and group selection are still rather controversial, although kin selection is widely-accepted. I'm also not sure if everybody accepts the gene-centered view of evolution. I think that everybody, in contrast, accepts that selection on individual organisms is an important factor in natural selection. That was what I was trying to get at with "not so well understood" Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with being concise - which is why I posted in the discussion pages first. However, once again - we have a statement that is an example of original research. I haven't come across a publication stating anything to the effect of "Historically it was generally accepted... If you read Darwin's quote the opposite conclusion is reached. Moreover, historian's have written otherwise, for example: Borrello M E. 2005. The rise, fall, and resurrection of group selection. Endeavour 29:43–47. The first and historical understanding of natural selection was that it applied to organism and groups. I think a solution to this is to include Darwin's quote and to say something to the effect:

Natural selection is the scientific foundation for the evolutionary process. Natural selection exerts influence on the nature of change across all scales of biodiversity, including genes, cells, organisms, and species. There are different kinds of natural selection operating in different contexts, including sexual, kin, and group selection. Charles Darwin, for example, also considered different forms of natural selection, including group selection: "It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe . . . an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another." While there was debate in the 21st century over which form of selection was the most influential, research has concluded that evolution isn't just survival of the fittest. Indeed, there are now numerous examples showing how cooperation and altruism, favoring groups, trumps selfish behavior, favoring lesser individuals.Thompsma (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is one thing I've learned in academia - everything is controversial, except the controversy itself.Thompsma (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is rapidly aproaching WP:TL;DR, and, frankly, I haven't read it all. But one thing I am certain of is that the article itself must not be allowed to go the same way. I am in favour of tweaking the sentence so that it more accurately reflects the state of affairs. I am not in favour of lengthening it by adding an apparently irrelevant quote from Darwin about morality! This is an introductory article. If something is inaccurate, change it or delete it. Don't go round and round in circles explaining in great detail, and try not to expand it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's quote isn't apparently irrelevant - it is most relevant to the principal of group selection and it explains it in very simple & concise terms. Perhaps you didn't get the memo, i.e. Charles Darwin & evolution??? The point I was trying to make is that the information in the article is false. If the article is going to introduce the concept of units of natural selection it has to present it accurately. Moreover, morality isn't irrelevant to the concept of evolution - it is a critical concept to introduce in the topic. To highlight that morality can and does exist in an evolutionary context engages the critics of evolution who are repulsed by the idea because they think it teaches amoral behavior.Thompsma (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It is apparently irrelevant in that it goes off on what looks like a tangent, and the connection to the unit of selection issue is not clear. Clarity is critical in this introductory article - and I think trying to introduce morality is simply too far from the central "story line". <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It may look like a tangent - but group selection has been used as an explanation for the evolution of morality. Selfish - Altruistic - are terms dealing with morality. How does morality evolve? Darwin was the first to address this through group selection type thinking. It relates to the unit of selection because it has been argued (by some) that morality in groups doesn't compute through the lens of selfish genes. This has direct bearing on the Unit of Change because there are selfish genes units and altruistic individuals within groups. Selfish and altruistic behaviors have bearing on morality. Darwin's quote on morality is the original source on group selection as a unit in evolution. I wouldn't be the first to draw upon this quote for this particular line of discussion.Thompsma (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Natural selection is the scientific foundation for the evolutionary process. Natural selection exerts influence on the nature of change across all scales of biodiversity, including genes, cells, organisms, and species. There are diverse views held by evolutionary biologist concerning which unit of selection plays the most prominent role in evolution . Some propose the organism view, and that natural selection serves to either enhance or reduce the reproductive potential of an individual. Reproductive success, therefore, can be measured by the volume of an organism's surviving offspring. The organism view has been challenged by a variety of biologists as well as philosophers. [Richard_Dawkins ........ then Gould .... Perhaps substituting "some" with a specific scientist that promotes the organism as the unit of selection? This seems to address the concern raised over the false statement that the organism view is not - nor has ever been the prevailing view, without requiring undue expansion. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about something like "For the sake of simplicity, it is often assumed that the unit of selection in evolution is the organism, with natural selection serving either to enhance or to reduce the reproductive potential of an individual. The organism view has been challenged..." <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not purposefully trying to draw this out - but these are examples of original research. You cannot take several pieces of published work and then pool the ideas together to form a statement such as - it is often assumed. Not only is this original research, it is an incorrect statement because it isn't assumed, scientists don't assume - or they shouldn't. To avoid original research the article must restate what is said in the published literature. To say there is disagreement over the unit of selection is acceptable, because there are publications that discuss this particular issue. Perhaps replace the sub-heading Unit of Change with something else? I will think about this for a bit and will come back to it.Thompsma (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One brief comment, and then I too move on. I meant it is assumed in the sense that basic textbooks often explain the processes in terms of organisms, and refer to fitness etc at the level of the individual. But I agree that the wording looks wrong, and looks like WP:OR. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is fair to say that this topic is controversial - notably through Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2121,The-Group-Delusion,Richard-Dawkins,page3). I think it is controversial because the outcome hinges on a question of morality Selfish genes or altruism in groups. It is tough to present a balanced view in a simple way for an introductory article? I mostly agree with Dawkin's, but I think he has missed a critical point that was delivered in Gould and Lloyd's paper on the interaction of Darwinian individuals as the unit of selection. I've worked as a geneticist for the past ten years and I'll be dammed if I could come up with an isolated definition of a 'gene' as a unit. Genes are not units - the term is a metaphor referring to molecules without clear boundaries except in cognitive precepts of individuality. Dawkin's uses the metaphor of card shuffling - but cards are simply individualized, genes cannot be sorted in this way. This is not the place to resolve the debate, but it is important not to favor one point of view. Group selection and kin selection are different kinds of selection that are being discussed - it is difficult to tell if they are natural kinds or constructs. Paleontologists, for example, see species selection as important agent (e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/72/2/646.full.pdf). Here is a more recent quote:

''Evolution by natural selection can occur at any level where there is heritable variation that affects birth and death of units by virtue of interaction with the environment. This dynamic can occur when selfish DNA sequences replicate disproportionately within genomes, when organisms enjoy fitness advantages within populations (classical Darwinian selection), when differential speciation or extinction occurs within clades owing to organismic properties (effect macroevolution), and when differential speciation or extinction occurs within clades owing to emergent, species-level properties (in the strict sense species selection).'' David Jablonski. (2007). Scale and hierarchy in macroevolution. Palaeontology, 50(1), 87-109.

Higher orders of natural selection (e.g. group selection) is an active area of research. I think it is important capture all the levels that are being seriously considered in the peer-reviewed literature - without preference or without being exclusionary.Thompsma (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An introduction to evolution should not cover all the points raised above. My proposal is to replace the existing text which currently reads:
 * It is generally accepted amongst biologists that the unit of selection in evolution is the organism, and that natural selection serves to either enhance or reduce the reproductive potential of an individual. Reproductive success, therefore, can be measured by the volume of an organism's surviving offspring.

with new text:
 * A common unit of selection in evolution is the organism. Natural selection occurs when the reproductive success of an individual organism is improved or reduced by an inherited characteristic, and reproductive success is measured by the number of an organism's surviving offspring.

Keep "unit of selection" as a link to an article with more details. --Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great job Johnuniq!! The following is more correct:

A common unit of selection in evolution is the organism. Natural selection occurs when the reproductive success of an individual organism is improved or reduced by an inherited characteristic, and reproductive success is measured by the number of an organism individual's surviving offspring. Thompsma (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Thompsma. Strangely, I had pretty much your version at one stage, but added "organism" to relate the concept to the first sentence (which says "organism" and does not mention "individual"). I would like to know why it is more correct to omit "organism" (I'm an amateur). --Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully support this revision of the offending sentence. Good work, Thompsma and Johnuniq! And I prefer the Thompsma version, with individual rather than organism. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is more correct to remove organism because of what it means to be an individual. Species, for example, are individuals. This was one of the great breakthroughs in 1966 when Michael Ghiselin entered into the philosophical debate over what constitutes a species . In philosophy an individual differs from kinds because they are spatio-temporarily restricted with a beginning, a development (Ontology), and an end. Individuals live one unique existence, which differs from natural kinds, such as gold. You can find gold in the periodical table and describe its exact laws, properties, and chemistry at any point in time. Gold was gold in the Jurassic with a specific gravity of 19.3 as it is gold with a specific gravity of 19.3 in the present. Homo sapiens, however, did not exist in the Jurassic, but was born in the early Pleistocene. We can say something definite about causal relations among kinds, but individuals evolve through interaction and we learn about the causal nature of individuals through the principals of natural selection. This concept is central to the arguments laid out by Stephen J. Gould in his book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (and in other papers before this). Gould (and others - including Charles Darwin) essentially shatter Richard Dawkin's exclusive gene centric view of Natural Selection. Dawkin's has yet to provide a cogent counterargument, which is why peer-reviewed scientific journals accept the Darwinian individual as the agent of natural selection. I recommend a few pages of the following to see why Dawkin's gene as THE UNIT of natural selection is gravely mistaken: . Perhaps shockingly - Dawkin's make an odd error in his reasoning when he introduces the concept of Cosmic Darwinism with great favor:

"Daughter universes are born in black holes produced by a parent universe, and they inherit its laws and constants but with some possibility of small random change - 'mutation'. Those daughter universes that have what it takes to reproduce (last long enough to make black holes, for instance) are, of course, the universes that pass on their laws and constants to their daughters." Richard Dawkins 2004 (The Ancestor's Tale)

This is shocking - because he doesn't accept natural selection beyond the gene (i.e. group selection), yet here he explains the same concept working at the cosmic level! Replace universe in his sentence with species (or groups, or individuals) and black holes with 'in the womb' to understand the connection.Thompsma (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed per discussion. Still not certain as to flow in that it seems to both reference organism and individual interchangeably. Should the lead sentence be changed to individual as well? Thoughts and/or direct edits are always welcome! --JimmyButler (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Gould and Lloyd (1999) answer to this question: We...strongly support the...usage of “individual” for the general Darwinian actor at any level of the hierarchy, and “organism” for the discrete body of single creatures in Darwin’s conventional realm, usually, and properly, called “organismic selection.” Thompsma (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was here a few hours ago, and had an edit conflict with Jimmy who updated the article just before I tried. After returning, I've reviewed Thompsma's reply, and I'd like to mention two points. First, it is clear from the context of the section that, in the new text, the word "individual" identifies an organism. Second (in an idea from Dawkins), let us imagine a line of organisms, finishing with a girl, and preceded by the mother of the girl, the mother of the mother, the previous mother, and so on. In principle, the line could consist of individuals spanning many millions of years. That continuous line of direct descendants has humans at one end, and a different species at the other, so it's not clear that a species is an "individual". --Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq - you are going into a very deep line of philosophical thought - are you sure you want to go down this rabbit hole? I started studying this problem about 20 years ago - there is lots to know. Your confusion rests with the difference between a species taxon versus a the species category. A species taxon is an individual, whereas a species category refers to the rank in the Linnaean hierarchy. David Hull, Mark Ereshefsky (who I studied with while I was at UofC), and many other philosophers seem to agree that species are individuals or particulars in the taxonomic sense - there are some researchers that disagree with this notion, but for the most part philosophers of biology and most of the greats (such as Earnst Mayr - minus Dawkins) support this notion. If you'd like to read more - I would recommend Mark Ereshefsky's books/writings or David Hull. I took two courses from Dr. Ereshefsky on this topic - it can get very complicated because it is one of the biggest debates. There are few, however, that would disagree on the notion that species are individuals for taxonomic ontology. Your line of reasoning looking at individuals spanning many millions of years is reminiscent of Kevin de Quiroz who has written extensively on the lineage concept (e.g. . There are thousands of papers on the species concept, for simplicity in this discussion - species as individuals simplifies the discussion on the units of natural selection.Thompsma (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not stray from the point of this page for much longer, but I want to record for others who may come later that I don't have any confusion on this point. The lineage concept I outlined is valid, and quickly proves that any definition of "species" is somewhat arbitrary and imprecise (in any finite species, there will be an individual with a mother that is not in the species). Bear in mind that there are many imprecise terms that we have to use (the color red is often mentioned at this point), so I'm not trying to denigrate the species concept. --Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual vs. Organism

 * To assist with the clarity on this point - the confusion between individual and organism isn't new, however it is important to remain consistent. I suggest sticking to the Gould and Lloyd usage of organism vs. individual (see above) for consistency. With respect to the confusion raised above on species as individuals - there is an insurmountable amount of literature discussing this point. Richard Dawkins is not the best source on this, species concepts is not his area of expertise and he doesn't publish primary literature on this topic. I mention David Hull and some of the others are the people that have been dealing with this issue for many years. The title of Mark Ereshefsky's book is 'The Units of Evolution', making it relevant to this section of the article. The part that Johnuniq missed in his lineage description is that there is also a branching process. The phylogenetic approach using cladistics is very clear on what a species taxon is. You can follow a lineage back in time and eventually you reach a point of coalescence where another species had branched off. What Johnuniq said about any definition of species as arbitrary and imprecise is not true. There are detailed rules, methods and procedures for identifying and nominating species. Alan Templeton, for example, has a precise formula using genetic statistical methods to test for a cohesion species. There are different concepts that nominate species on the grounds of ecological, phyletic, or evolutionary adaptations - all require detailed descriptions and knowledge on the speciation process. Foremost, a species is a monophyletic lineage of interbreeding organisms. A species lineage is a taxonomic and phyletic ontogenic individual.Thompsma (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Danger of overcomplicating things
I am somewhat wary of the changes to the lead paragraph introduced by this edit. It is undoubtedly more accurate, but (IMHO) at some expense of readability and ease of understanding. I like the new way that natural selection is introduced, but I'm not convinced of the need for all the details that follow. Bearing in mind that this is an introductory article, and that we are trying to do in a few paragraphs what often takes a whole textbook to convey, I suggest some simplification - from this:


 * If a new trait increases in the population relative to other traits, the forces of natural selection are at work. The advantage of one trait over another can be a sign of adaptation, which means that the functional utility of that trait is causing it to spread more rapidly than other competing traits. Such adaptations produce offspring that are better suited to deal with their environment and increases their chances of survival and reproduction. The accumulation of traits can lead to divergence among populations in a species. Natural selection advances the process of divergence when populations become isolated, either through geographic distance, or some other mechanism preventing migratory exchange and gene flow. Isolated from the rest, such populations acquire traits and eventually branch off into a new species that are reproductively isolated and unable to produce viable offspring by mating with members of the species of its origins.

... to something like this:


 * If a new trait increases in the population relative to other traits, the forces of natural selection are at work. The advantage of one trait over another (a sign of adaptation) may cause it to spread more rapidly through the population than other competing traits, producing offspring that are better suited to their environment and increasing their chances of survival and reproduction. The accumulation of traits can lead to divergence among populations, and eventually (if the groups become isolated, either through geographic distance or by some other mechanism preventing migratory exchange and gene flow) such populations may branch off into new species.

<b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the recent edits have made the article too complex, and I would welcome a return to the original text unless someone can say what was actually wrong with it.
 * Notice that the extracts above offer no explanation for what natural selection is. What is "inaccurate" about the old text, "If a new trait makes these offspring better suited to their environment, they will be more successful at surviving and reproducing"? --Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point - the old version provided an (albeit oversimplified) definition of natural selection, whereas the new one simply refers to it without explanation, and sends the reader off to the article on natural selection. "Adaptation" is somewhat similarly treated - alluded to but not really explained. I don't in fact have a problem with the old, oversimplified, version. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The addition does an excellent job of laying the ground work for the relationship between natural selection and speciation. However, introducing this much detail into the introductory paragraphs of an introductory article may be defeating the purpose. The introduction went through literally hundreds of edits before a consensus was reached; thus I am a tad nervous as to the outcome of such a dramatic expansion. Excessive details in the lead are to be discouraged. Sentences such as this: The advantage of one trait over another can be a sign of adaptation, which means that the functional utility of that trait is causing it to spread more rapidly than other competing traits. ? The challenge has always been saying more with less. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The original lead gave a misleading account of what natural selection really is. The changes do give a description of what natural selection is: ...new trait increases in the population relative to other traits. This defines natural selection as: (1) variability (i.e. new trait), (2) heritable variation (i.e. traits & heritability explained earlier in lead), and (3) differential reproduction. The original lead conflated natural selection with adaptation. This is a common mistake. Natural selection is one of the most beautiful explanations, seemingly simple, yet it is complex enough that the theory is more often mis-undersood than properly so. Not all change is equated with adaptation - neutral drift or evolutionary stable strategies, for example, are other ways in which natural selection operates. Adaptation is differentiated through: functional utility of that trait . The changes suggested by Snalwibma look fine.Thompsma (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case, I will implement my proposed changes to your new, more accurate, version! I hope it's simple enough... I hope it's accurate enough... <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, how about this:
 * If a new trait makes these offspring better suited (adapted) to their environment, they will be more successful at surviving and reproducing, and that trait will spread more rapidly through the population than other competing traits, showing the force of natural selection at work. The accumulation of traits can lead to divergence among populations, and eventually (if the groups become isolated, either through geographic distance or by some other mechanism preventing migratory exchange and gene flow) such populations may branch off into new species.

<b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My focus is strictly on word selection and simplicity. Can we say the same with less words. functional utility - for example must surly have a counterpart that is more direct . - Can migratory exchange and gene flow be stated as genetic exchange at this point in the article? Is there an alternative to the word divergence .  The underline for clarity --- not emphasis. Don't mistake my concern over readability with arrogance; I'm in no way prepared to debate the nuances of evolutionary theory!--JimmyButler (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I share your concern! Yes, I'd say a simple "genetic exchange" would be much better than "migratory exchange and gene flow". Is "divergence" that hard to understand? Hmmm. Maybe a work-around would be something like "As new traits accumulate, different populations may become less alike, and eventually..." - but my focus is on readability rather than technical accuracy, and I'd like to see what some of the real experts have to say! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestions!! Genetic exchange is a great substitute - I was stuck on that point too. Divergence - how about branching out? Readability is important - I am also concerned about the accuracy of what is being reported. I'm familiar enough with the literature that I can give insight on the details. Fourteen years of post-secondary education studying genetics and evolution has ruined me! Too much verbosity combined with the knowledge.Thompsma (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've had a go at it, here. I'm not sure it's quite right (I don't like "becoming more distinct", but I hit a mental block and left it) - so if someone wants to fiddle further, please go ahead! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It still needs fixing - don't have time at the moment, thought I would quickly add this comment in the meantime. Natural selection can also occur through a neutral process, such as genetic drift - the lead paragraph implies that natural selection is only adaptive in nature. Natural selection is the reproductive differential among a pool of competing traits sorting through successive generations. Don't confuse adaptation with natural selection - which is what the lead has come back to doing. I think I missed this the first time I read Snalwibma's suggested revision. I also found a few grammar mistakes. Thompsma (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit more reading on this to jog my memory. I'm not trying not to over complicate - doing my best to simplify in my own complicated way. Are random sorting and natural selection one in the same? Some authors view the neutral sorting process (i.e. genetic drift) as a part of natural selection and some see natural selection as a force driving adaptation. The forces of natural selection can range from strong to weak, which is why some propose that there is no need to distinguish weak selection from random or neutral genetic drift. In its simple form, the principles of natural selection rest upon three facts: 1) overproduction of offspring, 2) variation, and 3) heritability. When the forces of natural selection are strong, i.e. stressful times or low-population size, the rates of divergence increase and new evolutionarily adaptive peaks are conquered. However, random sorting can also lead to divergence and find evolutionarily adaptive peaks. The important message is that natural selection, adaptation, and divergence are different things. Unless the lead distinguishes between natural selection and random genetic drift (which seems way too complicated for an intro to evo), it is probably best not to link adaptation as a determined or inevitable consequence of natural selection. Natural selection is not caused by differences in the rate of survival or reproduction of different traits, it is the measure of difference. The following sentence,

" showing the force of natural selection at work."

seems to confuse adaptation as the cause for natural selection or vice versa. Separate the two:

Adaptive traits spread more rapidly through populations if they confer a competitive advantage and increase the chances of survival. The process of natural selection can shape the traits and evolution of organisms by acting on the source of variation among traits. The overproduction of offspring and heritability of traits are two additional facts of life that support the principals of natural selection.Thompsma (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Modification to lead
The second sentence in the first paragraph doesn't transition well. How about this:

Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. The simplest explanation for evolutionary theory can be understood through an organism that inherits copies of its parents genes. Changes (called mutations) in genes can produce a new trait in the offspring of an organism. Traits are features that vary in organisms, such as shape, color, or behavior....etc.

...and the second paragraph I think that Wallace needs to be included:

The first outline for evolution giving rise to all varieties of life through natural means of selection was jointly presented by Charles Darwin, Esq. and Alfred Russel Wallace on 1st July 1858 at the Linnaen Society of London. The larger volume on evolutionary theory was published in 1859 with the arrival of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. In addition, Gregor Mendel's discoveries on the inheritance of color traits in garden pea flowers in 1866 was rediscovered in 1900. Mendel's discovery on the hereditary of traits provided the first and fundamental principals of genetic's that revolutionized evolutionary biology. Further discoveries on how genes mutate, as well as advances in population genetics explained more details of how evolution occurs. Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation). They have observed the speciation process happening both in the laboratory and in the wild. This modern view of evolution is the principal theory that scientists use to understand life. Thompsma (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been too occupied elsewhere to comment in the last couple of days, but I prefer the original lead (before 25 January), and I also do not see why the changes proposed above are needed. Every extra word (particularly in the lead) detracts from this introduction. Changes should only be implemented to correct conceptual errors. The lead is not the place to correct any historical injustice to Wallace.
 * The current lead introduces "adaptive" with no explanation, and still makes no attempt to say what "natural selection" actually is.
 * Does anyone want to say why the original lead should not be restored? Did it have an error? Why is the new version better? --Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, no mention of Wallace in the introductory section of an introductory article! And a sentence like "The simplest explanation for evolutionary theory can be understood through an organism that inherits copies of its parents genes" is just too complicated and hard to understand. Much better to say it simply and directly, as "An organism inherits features (called traits) from its parents through genes." This text has to keep it simple, and if that means skating over a few niceties and blurring a few edges (and yes, at times being a little inaccurate), so be it. Like Johnuniq, I am not convinced that the new versions are any improvement on the old. That pre-25 January vesion may not have ticked all the technical boxes, but it was simple, direct, a reasonable approximation to the facts, and easy to understand. That has to be the priority. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well...okay. Some of this seems odd and would be a reason for me not to come to wikipedia for information. I can understand that I might not give the 'simplest' terminology, but it is important that correct information be provided - or at least a close approximation. I have explained that there were errors in the original lead - that gave the gist of evolution, with a lot of conceptual errors. Johnuniq states that there still is no attempt to say what "Natural Selection" actually is - when it is clearly and accurately defined. Based on some of the previous versions I have read in here it seems that the simple explanations of natural selection are simple because they are simply incorrect. What is a person going to understand when the information is incorrect? What reason or purpose would a person have for reading false information? There is a way to present information correctly and in a simple way without having to resort to blurring the edges. For most of the terminology I used in here I have been referring to several introductory books including one that was published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences to assist on effective education and communication of evolutionary theory. The problem I have with the second sentence as suggested by Snalwibma is that the transition is awkward and makes it even more confusing - perhaps there is a middle ground? The sentence jumps straight into "An organism..." without any link to the previous sentence - it doesn't flow. It is my opinion that Wallace fits in an introductory article - since it was Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace who were the first to jointly introduce the conceptThompsma (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Natural selection is a consistent difference in the rate of increase of different genotypes or genes (and No More Than That)" Douglas J. Futuyma

Here is what I put: The process of natural selection can shape the evolution of organisms by acting on the source of variation among traits. The overproduction of offspring and heritability of traits are two additional facts of life that support the principals of natural selection.

Rather than saying rate of increase as Futuyma says I used shape the evolution...by acting to simplify. Otherwise: 1) variation among traits; 2) overproduction of offspring; 3) heritability = Natural Selection. It is included.Thompsma (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The original text (25 January) of the first para was (bold = changed):
 * Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. An organism inherits features (called traits) from its parents through genes. Changes (called mutations) in these genes can produce a new trait in the offspring of an organism. If a new trait makes these offspring better suited to their environment, they will be more successful at surviving and reproducing. This process is called natural selection, and it causes useful traits to become more common. Over many generations, a population can acquire so many new traits that it becomes a new species.
 * I have asked a couple of times for an explanation of what is wrong with the above material. If it is not possible to briefly explain a conceptual error in the above text, I believe it should be restored. Please be aware that I have carefully read everything on this talk page, and my questions have not been answered. --Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is my answer: If a new trait makes these offspring better suited to their environment, they will be more successful at surviving and reproducing. This process is NOT called natural selection, and it DOES NOT cause useful traits to become more common.Thompsma (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I read through the full article for a second time, I see that there has been a lot of oversimplification to the point where the original meaning is lost. I'm finding lots of factual and conceptual errors. With concepts like natural selection and adaptation - this is to be expected. I support simplifying text to assist with understanding, but this MUST be done in a way that the original meaning isn't lost in translation. The previous example of natural selection is a case in point.Thompsma (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Current wording: Adaptive traits spread more rapidly through populations if they confer a competitive advantage and increase chances of survival. The process of natural selection can shape the evolution of organisms by acting on the source of variation among traits.
 * Suggested wording: Some traits become more common than others. This is called natural selection. This process makes some traits dominant while others go extinct.
 * Adaptation is complex. One may be tempted to say that organisms that acquire traits that tend to be more common are adaptive. But the gene may be good at propagating copies of itself while it is also harmful for the organism. --Ettrig (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ettrig's suggested wording correctly and succinctly identifies the essentials of natural selection, skipping over a few details, but it is fine. Adaptation: traits shaped by the process of natural selection that have a functional utility. The original wording that incorrectly defined natural selection was actually giving a definition for adaptation - but in an awkward way.Thompsma (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoping to simplify parts
Can anyone offer a way to simplify: "The overproduction of offspring..." in the lead of the article. It is too complicated. I was thinking: "Every organism produces more offspring that can possibly survive to an age of reproduction...etc.", but it seems too wordy.Thompsma (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems that people disagreed with including Wallace in the second paragraph. How about:

The first outline for evolution giving rise to all varieties of life through natural means of selection was published in 1859 with the arrival of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. In addition, Gregor Mendel's study of inheritance in color traits in garden pea flowers in 1866 was missed by Darwin, but rediscovered in 1900. Mendel's discovery provided the first and fundamental principals of genetic's and the hereditary of traits that revolutionized evolutionary biology.[2][3] Further discoveries on how genes mutate, as well as advances in population genetics explained more details of how evolution occurs. Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation). They have observed the speciation process happening both in the laboratory and in the wild. This modern view of evolution is the principal theory that scientists use to understand life.Thompsma (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thompsma, it is great that you are taking an interest in this article, and I fully accept your credentials for doing so. However, it would be good to first decide on the general purpose of the article, particularly in view of the first line:
 * This article is intended as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject.
 * For the main encyclopedia article, please see Evolution.
 * In many areas of knowledge, people start with a simple conceptual model, then build a more accurate but much more complex framework. For exceptionally bright people, it may be desirable to skip the introductory stages and deal only with accurate definitions. Most of us, however, need the introductory steps, even if they involve outdated definitions. I think we need a delicate balance between an understandable article, and an article in which it is not possible to challenge the technical accuracy of any statement.
 * In our earlier discussion, I was hoping you would say what was wrong with the original description given for natural selection, so we could evaluate the harm from keeping it. The original statement was in the lead from 2008-01-22 to 2009-01-25, and was developed after a lot of discussion (example).
 * Re your proposal to replace the second para of the lead: I really like the simple and understandable original text. Why would it need to be changed? --Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wonderful comments Johnuniq! I have read how people found the original text simple and understandable - but as I read it there are some fundamental mistakes. I don't agree with the argument for keeping text for the reason that it is simple and understandable. If it is giving the wrong information - then something else other than evolution is being understood and the title of the article should say something else - like An introduction to something like evolution that is easier to understand. There are, of course, some areas that are debatable in evolutionary theory, but there are basic foundations that have stood the test of time. The original description of natural selection in the lead was conceptually inaccurate and didn't say anything about natural selection despite its claims to the contrary. The text sort of alluded to the concept but then equated adaptation as natural selection, but even this wasn't clear. Natural selection is integral to the entire theory, so it is important that an introduction to the topic should at the very least do its best to get this part fixed. Evolution is a lightening rod for criticism, but most often because it isn't explained properly. I admit that I'm not the most qualified evolutionary biologist out there. I have only one published article on the subject in molecular evolutionary genetics, I worked in a paleontology lab for five years, I've taught various courses on the subject for the past ten years, and have been fortunate to meet and hold discussions with some of the greatest researchers of our time. However, I've read all of Darwin's works and can tell that the original lead was not Evolution as I know and understand it.
 * Re the proposal to replace the second paragraph - I'm offering suggestions on the text that stand out and hoping to improve parts. I realize this is an introduction to the topic and that I can be wordy. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the second paragraph as it stands - I'm offering an alternative, some of which is probably too wordy, but perhaps there is something I might add that can help it along. This is why I have left the 2nd paragraph as is - but for the lead, it was necessary to correct the mistakes.Thompsma (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time just now to give this the attention it deserves, but one thought strikes me. I appreciate the concern to make the text both accurate and easy to understand, and I have sympathy with Thompsma's view that accuracy should not be sacrificed in the interests of readability. The trouble is, however, that it's in the nature of language to offer approximations and metaphors rather than strict truths, and however accurate the text is made it is always going to be open to the accusation that it isn't accurate or precise enough, that it offers a chink through which a misunderstanding may creep. And I'm afraid there comes a point at which, if a choice must be made, my choice is for readability rather than strict accuracy. My suggestion is that instead of striving to make the text as accurate as possible, it should be accurate enough for its purpose - and that purpose is to introduce the reader (think 12-year-old) gently to the subject. There is already a note at the head of the article saying that this is a basic introduction, and referring the reader to Evolution for the full story. Would it be worth considering slipping in a further comment (perhaps more than once) that the text here is in some respects oversimplified? Would that give us licence to skate over a few of the details and blur a few of the edges? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of interest. It is only the introductory paragraph(s) that constantly get the edits. The article itself is remarkably stable. The introduction to an Introduction to... can't be over-complex. It is (as with all wikipedia articles) intended to summarize what lays ahead. Rather than adding lines; perhaps we should be deleting lines and allow the reader to explore the details in the appropriate sections to follow. The article is not negligent; nor do I think you have to label it over-simplified merely because the lead fails to provide sufficient detail to all the information that follows. For example, failing to mention Wallace would the negligent; however, omitting him from the lead paragraph is not. For a novice on the subject - first impressions may dictate whether they will chose to struggle through an article that is beyond their skills from the very first line. Cut the lead back to a simple statement of upcoming events - add your detail to the text that follows if it is remiss. If the information can not be stated concisely in the lead --- don't state it at all. The trend to turn the first paragraphs into a complete and exact summary of evolution is not possible. I can assure you that you could visit the Main page on Evolution and find similar situations of errors by omission. It is a lead... --JimmyButler (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some great points here. I like the point that Snalwibma made about think 12-year-old. This is a good guide. When I first came here I didn't fully appreciate the level of audience that was intended - I reverted to my over bloated scientific pontificating and missed the point - so this helps and I'll try to be more alert to this. However, the original lead had strayed too far from the original meaning of terms - even with a good understanding of how language and metaphor are at work. Natural selection, for example, is a wonderful metaphor - I often think of supernatural selection for contrast. I will spend a bit of time in the public library and will write down terms that I see in children books on evolution. This should give some guidance.Thompsma (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary Fitness
In the following section the wording of fitness is conflated with adaptation, eg:

Well-adapted, or "fit", individuals are likely to leave more offspring than their less well-adapted competitors.

This reads like the 'Lamarkian' concept of fitness - using the cliche example, a giraffe who can extend its neck higher than others is more fit. A similar mistake is repeated in other sections that also mix-up natural selection with adaptation. Fitness is not adaptation, it is a numerical measure of how many copies of a genotype survive through successive generations relative to others in the population. Fitness is a measure of natural selection as a function of differing reproductive rates. This article may be simple to read, but the meaning and use of most of the evolutionary terms are jumbled and confusing the fundamental concepts of evolution. Thompsma (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

minor - insignificant question
"some traits become more common while others go extinct." Can disappear work here? It is an article with a biological theme; hence extinction tends to invoke the end of a species. Just seems too dramatic /overkill here and it would be in alignment with the section on Darwin and natural selection later in the article. --JimmyButler (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "disappear" would be less likely to be misunderstood. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, one could use "Become extinct" Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

also minor - citation questioned
The citation of "more than 99 percent of those within the scientific community" supporting evolution seems really disingenuous. The website that is cited is just a quote of some guy's wishful thinking, not a documented study. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was closer to 80% when America and fields unrelated to biology are taken into account. As much as I'd like for the world to be the way this article says, it's not, and I think this citation should be taken out right away and replaced with the results of a proper survey. 74.128.203.23 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is globally, not just scientist from one nation. If you feel this to be in error, find a better reliable source for it, and we can reconsider. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see Level of support for evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm having trouble finding one that doesn't just focus on the United States (specifically the Gallup poll with the 95% figure). It's still kind of silly that what we've got is the best citation out there though (as in, a quote of some guy spouting off a wholly unsubstantiated figure), as you'd think there would be some pretty well-known global studies on Creationism acceptance.  Oh well, maybe I'm just not good enough at searching for research to find such things.  After having looked around a bit I've been thoroughly proven wrong on my 80% estimation; it seems that even economists, computer scientists, and the like unrelated to biology also almost universally accept evolution.  Didn't know that.

74.128.203.23 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not FA-quality
This article simply isn't particularly well-written at this point, nor is it organized and structured in a reader-friendly, consistent way. It reads more like a POV fork for old editorial decisions and disputes on Evolution than like a beginner's guide. I recommend comparing the current lead section on this article to the one on Evolution, which actually makes less use of jargon than this page does. -Silence (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of the debate that has taken place in the development of this article revolves around alternative conceptions that are common in people's understanding of evolution. Research that looks at the way that people understand the concept of natural selection, for example, shows that their deeper understanding is oftentimes incorrect. I have seen the same mistakes repeated in this article many times over that are symptomatic of this very problem. I agree with Silence, this article needs help, but it is plagued with dispute. I recommend that people read through the following paper: [] ... it was developed for teaching and understanding the concept of natural selection and points out the kinds of alternative conceptions that are commonly encountered in teaching the subject matter. The authors also use techniques developed through the bioliteracy project to identify terminology that is 'user' friendly so that the test can effectively identify where people are making their conceptual errors. One of the key errors in the lead of this article is that it misses the great importance of genetic drift. It err's on the side of natural selection...whereas:


 * "This has led us to consider the broader ramifications of misunderstanding random processes in both students and the general population. A common observation, which echoes the finding of Lecoutre et al., was that students were unwilling to see random processes as capable of directed effect in themselves—they routinely seek alternative rational explanations, the dominant one being the presumption of drivers that are actually responsible for the observed effects."

The lead makes it seem as though natural selection is the primary driving force, but the neutral theory of molecular evolution (or random genetic drift) is equally if not more important a concept. Good luck trying to improve this article, however, - it is locked in debate oftentimes by people who do not grasp the concepts.Thompsma (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)




 * The term "locked" seems a bit strong; I hope this, like all articles on Wikipedia are always open to improvement. The Introduction article does not receive the same level of attention as the main article; hence stability is far more likely. However, precisely because it is a tad bit off the radar, edits for improvement are less challenging.
 * The small number of editors that have strong opinions are primarily concerned with the trend to over-complicate; thus defeating the purpose of what is essentially two articles on the same subject. That seems to be the primary concern in past dialog when reviewing this talk page.
 * It does have a very "heated" history on the talk pages (My hair still hasn't grown back); however, very few direct edits have been challenged and even fewer over-turned. Hopefully the contributors are neither dogmatic or ignorant of the topic. So please, if improvements can be made...--JimmyButler (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that this article should be started over basically from scratch. Over half of its contents are completely non-introductory and digressive. As I mentioned, it is currently a fork, not an introduction; it has equal complexity, but much less important and basic information focused upon, relative to Evolution. It should first be de-FA'd, so that we can make radical changes without 'sneaking them by' the community, which should get a chance to look at and dissect substantial features of any article before it gets FA'd, not after (plus major changes should never be made to an FA since 'stability' is such a virtue at that stage). I would nominate it for de-FA myself, but if this were disputed by any energetic editors it would require weeks of constantly responding to new changes to the article, and I don't have the time to drop everything else in my life solely to discuss salvaging an unsalvageably miss-focused page. -Silence (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a completely fresh look might be a good idea. The original plan was to produce a simple introductory article, but it got bogged down over the years by many people chipping in with "oh but you must mention X" and "it's important to note that Y". The end result is of course a compromise, or series of compromises, and no doubt it could be improved upon. And if the article takes a fundamentally mistaken route through the maze (e.g. too much emphasis on natural selection, not enough on genetic drift), then that obviously needs to be dealt with. But might I suggest that the best way to proceed would be to start a draft article somewhere in user space (e.g. User:Silence/Introduction to Evolution!) rather than de-FAing the existing article. Let's keep what we have until there is something substantially better to replace it with! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you messing with me, or do great minds just think alike? :P User:Silence/Introduction to evolution ho!
 * Barely started, but obviously everyone is free to pitch in or suggest changes. Trying to maximize simplicity and straightforwardness (both in content and layout), since Evolution is already so accessible that anyone who needs an 'introduction' should need a really introductory introduction. -Silence (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Messing with you... But seriously, I wholeheartedly support you in your efforts to "maximize simplicity and straightforwardness". I will pitch in when I have time (maybe February 2010!). <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had suggested a sandbox version; but deleted my comment before saving thinking it might seem dismissive; since you had stated time might be a problem. It is an excellent suggestion if you truly feel the article is unsalavagable. Wow - kudos to you for taking on such an ambitious project as a complete re-write. Is it your goal to see the new and improved meet FA standards?--JimmyButler (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. But obviously that isn't a short-term expectation, even if my basic idea happened to be successful it would take a lot of revision and debate to even get started back on that road, with a more truly 'introductory' page. -Silence (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I submitted this article to the list of "Featured article removal candidates":Featured_article_reviewThompsma (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please develop an alternate variant on a user page
Hi,

I am reverting Silence's good faith edit. It seems too large a deletion for a person to understand what exactly is intended. The deletion contains referenced work by many editors and sections also. No indication in the edit summary as to how he intends to replace them.

I suggest that Silence complete his alternate version on his user page and that be debated, amended and approved rather than unilateral large-scale deletion of parts of this article. When its ready, we vote to replace it or not.

AshLin (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That way of editing doesn't work (I saw the try at Evolution) - it's not open enough. Besides, the sooner the biased sections are gone the better. I'm for restoring Silence's edit. Narayanese (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I share AshLin's concern regarding the large deletions and unclear ultimate intention, and I agree that ideally an alternative article would be developed elsewhere, then history-merged to here, following a discussion. However, Narayanese is also correct: it's too big an ask, particularly since other editors are unlikely to join in unless the text is in this article. Furthermore, I think the version started by Silence shows a great deal of promise and is likely to become much better than the current article. So, I support reinstating Silence's version and evaluating in a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, I'm reverting it myself. AshLin (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the version before Silence's change, to make it easier if someone is looking for material to salvage or restore: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&oldid=312368673 Narayanese (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck trying to improve this article, however, - it is locked in debate oftentimes by people who do not grasp the concepts. On at least this account you were utterly wrong. Which version is now up for FA de-listing?--JimmyButler (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Revisions look good so far, a welcome improvement. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What evolution is not
I don't find this a particularly good section. The first paragraph, Evolution is not a theory, is an incomprehensible set of semantics; I just doesn't explain anything to me. Evolution is not sudden: this section looks wrong, evolution doesn't take millions of years to give obvious changes afaik; it only happends to have occurred over milions of years. And in all, I don't think slapping people with mistakes is the best way to present facts, though the point about progress probably needs a mention, though it could be done in a different form in some other section (like Adaption). Narayanese (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it an excellent way to introduce, and the sort of thing a properly informative article would do. It is really boring when people like you can't exercise a little bit of creative imagination, instead of insisting on turgid plodding prose. Well done to the person who wrote it, and ignore calls to change.  Wik idea  13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree: that whole section needs to be rewritten. I've taken a stab at it, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was very hesitant to format the information in this way, but I do currently think it's a to-the-point and effective, if not maximally graceful or subtle, way of dispelling the most likely misconceptions people will come to this article possessing. You can see an earlier version here. I'm not clear on what your objection to the "theory" paragraph is; I think it is rather straightforward, though I wouldn't object to seeing it reworded positively as "Evolution is an observation / fact" (if the other two entries could be just as clear and straightforward in positive language too).
 * Evolution does take millions of years to effect obvious changes in most cases. (See punctuated equilibrium: Dramatic change, which still takes thousands to millions of years, is believed to be extremely rare under the current theory, compared to very slow drift.) -Silence (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job tidying up the prose! I support all of Apokryltatros/Fink's changes, except changing "It is an extremely gradual, incremental process, usually requiring millions of years to effect obvious or dramatic change" to "It is an extremely gradual, incremental process, requiring several generations, to effect obvious or dramatic change.", which is not clear or correct. The original is accurate. -Silence (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the mathematical unit of evolutionary change is deliberately defined in millions of years. There will obviously be rare exceptions (like the famous peppered moth case), but that's why I deliberately phrased it as a generalization with "usually". -Silence (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it from "millions of years" to "several generations," and now to "several hundreds to several thousands of generations" because I'm unsure of what the definition of "obvious or dramatic change". How should it be defined, as speciation, appearance or loss of novel features, or dramatic changes in body form?  I mean, speciation has been observed to occur within a very short time, like a few thousand years with cichlids, such as in the African Rift Valley, or as seen in the fossil record of Mahengechromis in the Eocene crater lake of Lake Mahenge (where at least 5 species of this cichlid arose over 5 to 7000 years), or a few years as seen in various bacteria.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The expression "operates on a timescale of millions of years" could be used get around the problem of words like obvious or dramatic, if we want to focus on the timescale of the differences we see around us rather than how fast things can happen (which also depends a lot on how strong the selection is). Narayanese (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Operates on a timescale of millions of years" is again inaccurate; evolution operates on a timescale of generation to generation (microevolution), and macroevolution is only a byproduct of this incremental effect. That's, again, why I phrased it originally as "It is an extremely gradual, incremental process, usually requiring millions of years to effect obvious or dramatic change". As far as I can tell, this phrasing is still the most accurate and informative one offered. (The only possible source of ambiguity is the slightly rare, though correct, use of the verb 'effect'.)
 * This being an introduction, the entire article will necessarily speak in generalizations to some extent. That being the case, I deliberately left the phrase vague, as "obvious or dramatic change", because any plausible interpretation of that phrase will be correct. If one interprets "obvious or dramatic change" as "speciation", then it is correct to say that it usually takes millions of years (one book suggests that it takes 3 million years on average). If one interprets it as "dramatic changes in body form", then it is again correct to say that it usually takes millions of years. Personally, by "dramatic change" I was thinking of things like "size or shape or an anatomical feature changing significantly enough to be easily spotted by the human eye", which again usually takes millions of years. And the fact that the Darwin unit is measured in years, rather than in generations, again suggests that this is not an inappropriate way to talk about evolutionary change. What is perhaps being misunderstood here is the fact that cichlids are so significant in evolutionary biology precisely because they're so unusual; their rapid (i.e., in thousands rather than millions of years) cladogenesis makes them extreme outliers, hence useful research subjects. -Silence (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These are good points, and it's worth making it clear that obvious or dramatic changes commonly take many millions of years. However, there is also the everyday example of bacteria and viruses evolving rapidly under selective pressure, and evolution being used to make medicaly treatments The last case looks like a possible useful example, there are others. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and that's an argument for switching from 'years' to 'generations' in trying to explain how slow evolution is (since microorganisms only evolve so fast because they have such short lifespans and generations &mdash; though as I understand it viruses are a special case, since they arguably aren't even organisms, and can be extremely mutation-prone). But I still would say that these are 'unusual' exceptions &mdash; and arguably not particularly "obvious" or "dramatic" ones either, depending again on your standards for 'obviousness' (certainly most laypeople wouldn't be able to tell the difference between flu strains!). I don't think we should over-qualify the basic point and risk drowning out the message that is so crucial to convey; this is still an introduction article, after all, and if it's worth mentioning bacterial evolution (e.g., antibiotic resistance) at all, it may be better placed, e.g., in the Introduction to evolution section (which I haven't put any work into yet). -Silence (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if some simple qualifying word like "animal" might be used so Silence's wording could be used. While all the edits to the article have been good (and would be excellent in Evolution), it seems to me that every change away from Silence's text has added another veil of mystery. After a few more weeks of adding detail, we will be back to an "introduction" that only specialists will want to read. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is not sudden
has a section headed Evolution Happens All the Time! with examples including Darwin's finches, House Sparrow, Sockeye salmon (recognisable differences enough to be taken as a new species in 40 years, close to being genetically isolated), Three-spined stickleback (showing change in body armor and spine length in a dozen years), viruses and bacteria, and Pesticide resistance – that source can be used to improve these articles, with the last one for some bizarre reason mentioning selection but not using the evolution word! Regarding this article, I've modified the "is not" paragraph using the Pesticide resistance example: will also tweak that article. More detail could suitably appear in the How has life evolved in the past? section of this article, which should also mention biogeography. . . dave souza, talk 07:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning formating
Is the formatting of headings appropriate for encyclopedia articles - formulated into Questions. It is effective as a teaching tool - in that you are anticipating what questions a reader may have in advance; however, will this textbook style conform to FA standards? --JimmyButler (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to archive the bulk of the discussion above - to the point that it is relevant to the re-write. The talk page has become cumbersome.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction articles are weird. Really, really weird. I know of no encyclopedia that has an equivalent to them; in encyclopedias, it is assumed that Evolution is an introduction to evolution, so having an 'introduction to the introduction' would be just plain silly. And in any case, the lead paragraph of Evolution fulfills that role.

So, my view is that introductions are a deliberate deviation from the normal, formal style of Wikipedia for purely pedagogical purposes: We're simplifying and repackaging things to an abnormal degree purely for the sake of ensuring that our readers are actually benefited by articles related to this topic. "Introduction" articles almost don't even belong in the article namespace; they're like a fourth-wall-breaking aside, a greek chorus in which we set the reader aside to explain the real basics. That doesn't mean that our standards should in any respect be lowered; it simply means that informality is no great sin if being strict about something would make this page less accessible. On a normal article, I'd be the first to object to using question-and-answer format; but the entire purpose of an introduction page is to try creative and unusual approaches to get the message across to readers (since the assumption is that our ordinary mode of presentation failed on the main page, else nobody would need an introduction). -Silence (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, much of the frustrations with the previous FA attempt stemmed from conforming to Wiki-style especially regarding the introduction section. It was changed an amazing number of times to conform to the parameters of FA. That being, the intro. needed to serve as an overview of the entire article. As you say, writing an intro to an intro treads into the realm of confusion. After the Fa attempt, many of us felt that much was sacrificed to appease our critics. If you feel good about what you have done ... do not feel pressured to conform to well-meaning critics should you pursue the FA star; especially if their primary goal is to derail the attempt.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-FAing this article (even if the current RfC doesn't delist it (and I think it should), it will obviously need to be seriously re-evaluated by the community at large since it's changed so much) would be fantastic, but it's not my top priority. My top priority is to make this page clear, accessible and informative, and something more substantially useful than a Simple:Evolution mirror would be. If making this article useful as a distinct page from Evolution requires that we not make it an FA, so be it. It will get plenty of traffic either way (plus Evolution is already featured). -Silence (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on the concept of the introductory article - "No encyclopedia that has an equivalent to them"? Try Encyclopedia Britannica, which has several volumes devoted to what are in effect introductory articles! But I agree that a Q&A format may well be appropriate for an intro article on WP. I have long argued (in various talk-page discussions)against trying to straitjacket this article by applying "normal" WP FA criteria and the like. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Micropaedia articles are only 'introduction introductions' in the sense that a Wikipedia consisting only of the lead sections of each article would be. They're in no way analogous to our Introduction pages, which are not summaries of other articles, but are more like utilitarian digressions into textbook-land. -Silence (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution does not happen quickly but requires several thousands of years atleast

This has been bought up before, but I think it should be changed slightly. There are several studies now pertaining to rapid evolution in several species which has happened in as short a time as a half a century.

I think a more appropiate way to phrase this would be to state something like:

Evolution USSUALY takes xx amount of time, however some species have been to shown to xxxx.

I'll leave it to the more experienced editors.


 * Just to add something, evolution can occur very quickly. Think of Kentucky Fried Chicken. We can selectively breed animals in a few years. It just depends what we are talking about. Most evolution occurs - and the examples religious zealots don't want to acknowledge - over a long space of time; especially Mormons, they are evolving REALLY slowly! (I wonder how long it'll take for some humourless soul to take offence?)  Wik idea  13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)