Talk:Evolution/Archive 65

Evolution is validated by more than one line of research. Fossils, DNA, biochemistry?, and, I believe, other areas. Would it be possible for someone familiar with evolution to put these in this article or, perhaps Evolution as fact and theory? Preferably, imo, as bullet points? I would like to be able to find the basis the theory in one easy to read place.

Also, the article Evolution as fact and theory is linked to in this article, but it is piped from fact. Would it be a good idea to add it to see also. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, have any of these questions actually been frequently asked? Or have they been written by an editor, who subsequently wrote a response to them? I'm just a little confused by a set of eight "rephrased" questions that have allegedly been asked frequently, even though there is no record of any one of them having been asked in the form in which it appears here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.56.84 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Frequently Asked Questions" addresses concerns and or complaints brought up by creationists, trolls for Jesus and various well-intentioned editors who have been deceived by creationist anti-science misinformation. And yes, all of the questions actually have been brought up in this and related talkpages in numerous, numerous reiterations.

The FAQ section is very well written - worthy of good article status in itself. MFlet1 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am curious how you arrived this statement of fact: "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.168.16 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2013

Here: Last universal ancestor (plenty of sources) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

American philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote, “I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”^[1]

American writer Leon Wieseltier wrote, "Scientism is not the same thing as science. Science is a blessing, but scientism is a curse. Science, I mean what practicing scientists actually do, is acutely and admirably aware of its limits, and humbly admits to the provisional character of its conclusions; but scientism is dogmatic, and peddles certainties. It is always at the ready with the solution to every problem, because it believes that the solution to every problem is a scientific one, and so it gives scientific answers to non-scientific questions. Owing to its preference for totalistic explanation, scientism transforms science into an ideology, which is of course a betrayal of the experimental and empirical spirit."^[2]

Intercalate (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as entirely irrelevant. Who really cares what either of these people think? Especially Wieseltier. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Especially since Atheism and Scientism are entirely, nay, utterly irrelevant to the topic of Evolution(ary Biology), that is, when Creationists aren't trying to illegitimately and or inappropriately graft the former two into the latter in order to create strawmen turned manufactured crises of faith.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe these quotes are general criticisms of a type of scientist, not science generally, and certainly not the theory of evolution specifically. There are probably articles on WP where they might be relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

And they may be useful in the articles on those two authors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the section "Genetic hitchhiking". It doesn't have much to do with evolution or its relevance for evolution is not discussed sufficiently. Also, 2 of the 3 cited references are of no or only marginal relevance to the subject. The section can be moved to a genetics page where it would be perfectly appropriate (provided that the references are fixed). Peteruetz (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. It has a lot to do with evolution, as it has the effect that evolution increases the prevalence of certain genes not because they in themselves have survival advantages, but because they are associated with genes that do. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article omits a point that is extremely important both for understanding scientific logic and for dealing with critics of evolution--the distinction between the observable FACT of evolution (species change and common descent, no longer in the least controversial) and the theory of evolution (a constantly shifting scientific consensus about the precise interrelated roles of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, epigenetics, group selection, exaptation, punctuated equilibrium, and so fourth). What many (and I would hazard to say most) lay people don't clearly understand is that scientific controversies over details of theory have no bearing whatsoever on the rock bottom scientific consensus on the FACT of evolution. It is a simple fact that life evolves.

Granted there is a single good sentence in the introduction referring to the fact of evolution --"Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science"--but most lay people would read that to mean that a key part of the theory of evolution is factually true--i.e. the fact/theory distinction is never clarified. The point is: you can have a theory about what the facts are, and a theory about what caused the facts, and they are not at all the same thing. The facts are what actually happened: descent with modification. That broad fact has become incontrovertible, so theorizing about that fact is no longer relevant to science. We do have smaller controversies about the exact course of that common descent. The explanation for the facts is even more controversial, and keeps being challenged (in relatively small ways) as a necessary part of ongoing science.

It follows, not incidentally, that evidence for the fact of evolution is distinct from evidence for particular theories of evolution. Therefore it ought to be treated separately in your article. Granted that the fact of evolution was not fully accepted until a good explanatory theory came along, nevertheless the fact of evolution was emerging into scientific understanding well before the Darwin/Wallace theory came along. I think it a serious weakness of this article that it does not make that critical distinction, and also does not clearly separate evidence for the fact from evidence for specific theories.

Also not incidentally, once that distinction is made, most of the attacks on evolution made by creationists become obviously irrelevant. Scientific controversies over details of the theory have nothing to do with the fact that species were observably not created as is some 10,000 years ago.

Burressd (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Evolution as fact and theory. --97.87.108.13 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is impossible to have digressions on every possible question in every article. This particular article is already very large and digressions need to be handled in daughter articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The text below in quotes, that I had inserted, was removed. It was previously removed with the comments Danielkueh (talk | contribs)‎ . . (171,960 bytes) (-1,463)‎ . . (Two issues: 1) Not too clear where editor was going with this. 2) Based on the names of the first two authors on one of the two cited sources, there appears to be WP:COI issues. Please discuss on talk page.) (undo | thank).

I apologize for doing an undo without taking it to a talk page as requested. I had not done an undo previously, and I see I was in error by not taking it to the talk page. I plan to do it properly if I see the need for an undo in the future with a request to take it to the talk page.

This is the paragraph in question: "One of the major unresolved problems in biology is the primary adaptive function of meiosis (and homologous recombination), which bears on the even larger problem of the adaptive function of sex in eukaryotes. One view is that meiosis evolved primarily as an adaptation for increasing genetic diversity.^[11][12] An alternative view is that meiosis is an adaptation primarily for promoting accurate DNA repair (by homologous recombination) in germ line DNA, and that increased diversity is a byproduct that may be useful in the long term.^[13][14] (See also Evolution of sexual reproduction)."

Issue 1 indicated "Not too clear where editor was going with this." It seemed reasonable to me to include, in an article on Evolution (subsection "Adaptation") to consider a widely recognized unresolved problem in this area, namely the adaptive function of sexual reproduction. My intent was not to discuss this issue in any detail, but rather to indicate the major alternative lines of reasoning relating to this aspect of evolution.

Issue 2 indicated "Based on the names of the first two authors on one of the two cited sources, there appears to be WP:COI issues." Although I have worked in this area, I have taken out the reference to my own work and replaced it with an independent authoritative reference to a review by Birdsell and Willis (Birdsell JA, Wills C (2003). The evolutionary origin and maintenance of sexual recombination: A review of contemporary models. Evolutionary Biology Series >> Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 33 pp. 27-137. MacIntyre, Ross J.; Clegg, Michael, T (Eds.), Springer. Hardcover ISBN 978-0306472619, ISBN 0306472619 Softcover ISBN 978-1-4419-3385-0). With respect to the citation to Horandl, 2013, my name is only mentioned as the editor of a volume titled "Meiosis" but I did not contribute to the paper by Horandl contained in this book (Elvira Hörandl (2013). Meiosis and the Paradox of Sex in Nature, Meiosis, C. Bernstein (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-1197-9, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/56542. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/meiosis/meiosis-and-the-paradox-of-sex-in-nature).

The paragraph that was removed is neutral and I think it is unbiased. I suggest that the paragraph be returned to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernstein0275 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Bernstein0275 (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the paragraph per se, but the content is too specialized for the general Evolution page. The evolvability sentence it follows is already at the limit of a point on adaptation belonging within a general Evolution article. The evolution of sex could go in to that sentence as an example, eg "An interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations, e.g. sexual reproduction, might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and adapt by natural selection" with appropriate refs. The evolution of meiosis is simply to specialized to go within an Adaptation subsection of a more general article. Joannamasel (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. danielkueh (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As do I. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggest adding the following to include definitions for "byproducts" and "random noise," along with the following table of definitions / examples. (Note: I added this, but it was reverted. Imho, seems relevant and important to include. If the psychological examples are of concern, that row could be removed from the table.)

As noted in the table below, traits may also be byproducts of adaptations (sometimes called "spandrels"), or random variation between individuals.^[15]

One of the tasks of evolutionary biology and psychology is to identify which traits are likely to be adaptations, exaptations, byproducts or random variation. George C Williams suggested that an "adaptation is a special and onerous concept that should only be used where it is really necessary."^[16] As noted by Williams and others, adaptations can be identified by their improbable complexity, species universality, and adaptive functionality.

Memills (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The section on adaptation already discusses vestigial structures and exaptations. This proposed table (much of its contents unsourced) is nothing more than a carbon copy of the one found in Evolutionary Psychology. We don't need to duplicate it in a general article on biological evolution. This table and the random quote by George Williams add nothing to this article. danielkueh (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

By-products are not necessarily vestigial structures. The table classifications, and most of the examples, are sourced to the Buss, et al. reference. The George Williams ref (from his book Adaptation and Natural Selection) identifies the criteria to be used to identify adaptations / exaptations (from byproducts / noise). Memills (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This section already gave three definitions of adaptation. It does not need a poorly formulated one from this table. This table should remain in evolutionary psychology, where it belongs. We don't need to duplicate it here. That is why we have SEPARATE WP pages. danielkueh (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I know this is probably not the place to say this but because the user, Slrubenstein, was a frequent and prominent contributor to this page, I believe we can make a small exception to the talk page guidelines. For those of you who know the user:Slrubenstein or who have interacted with him in one way or another in the past but have kept up with him, I would like to point you to an important update on his personal page. I myself just learned about this today. Slrubenstein (or Steven) has been a prolific contributor on Wikipedia for quite a few years, and he has been a frequent editor of the evolution page. Anyone who has bothered to go over the archives of this talk page will see that Steven has made a lot of very important and positive contributions to this page. He will definitely be missed. danielkueh (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

God rest his soul.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Steve was the first to greet me and explain Wikipedia seven years ago. I really respected this man and though I never broke bread or met him in person I called him a friend. This really saddens me. He had a great mind and sense of humor. L'hitraot SLrubenstein. GetAgrippa (talk)

I suggest changing the introductory sentence from what it is now to Evolution is "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." I believe this a clearer definition of what Evolution actually is and reads easier.

I'd like to get a few opinions on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEditPro (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been debated to death. I recommend that you take a look at the previous discussions in the archives, starting with #60. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything I could contribute to this article that you would suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEditPro (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, nothing much that I can think of. However, there is always room for improvement. Again, I recommend going through the archives carefully. Many ideas have been forward, but few of them have actually been pursued. Perhaps you can have a look and see which areas can be improved. Alternatively, you can look at other pages on evolution (e.g., evolutionary biology) that need more improvement. Also, this page is often a target of individuals with little to no understanding of science. It would be helpful if you can put this page on your watchlist and guard against vandalism or unsourced changes to this articles. Thanks for your interest in helping to improve this article. danielkueh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is insufficient evidence to make the absolute claim that "life evolved from a universal common ancestor 3.2 Billion years ago". This is debatable and should be precluded by "Some scientists believe" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.168.16 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts about anyone's beliefs are irrelevant, what published reliable source supports such an assessment as realistic consensus of peer reviewed science? . . dave souza, talk 08:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the present definition is fine, but what does strike me is it seems to indicate only "change" is evolution, whereas maintenance is too-hence "living fossils". The living fossil misnomer gives people the impression they haven't evolved. It technically is the "change and maintenance" of heritable traits in successive generations of populations. Not that I think we should change the intro of article but we should make sure the distinction is made so people aren't confused. Regards GetAgrippa (talk)

Agreed with GetAgrippa. Evolution is not just change. Most species persist for 500,000 to 2 million years, some even longer. Of course change takes place in the populations, but then some parts remain the same - such as the DNA that gets passed along. The DNA doesn't change - it gets replicated and exchanged. Some of the information changes, but some of it remains stable and yet we still have evolution. Through the replication process the template is preserved. This is why heritability is so important in the evolutionary process. One of the top critiques against Darwin's original proposal was the blending of characters would create too much change for evolution to work. It was the discovery of the stasis of independent heritable traits that defeated this part of the debate. It should read:

"Evolution is the exchange of inherited characteristics in biological populations that tend to diversify and even speciate when subjected to different environmental conditions over successive generations." or "Evolution is a process of inheritance and change in the characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.102.86 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well you don't need "different environmental conditions" either. The Lenski bacteria experiment demonstrates it occurs without any environmental necessity with changes in size and use of citrate. Great examples of exaptations in this process too. I'd leave the sentence as is, but explain what "change" means later in the text. The Lenski experiment is a great example of descent with modification. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At what point do you separate the gene from the environment? Don't genes create their environment? If a piece of DNA mutates, then you have a different kind of environment. Seems to me (and other published geneticists) that the two are inseparable. Try to peel the two apart and tell me when you succeed. The sentence stated "tend", didn't say it was a requirement. Rationalwiki has a much better evolution definition and page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution). Evolution is a theory that refers to certain facts.184.71.102.86 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Add to Article Content and Link Wiki "Law of Complexity/Consciousness" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and "Noosphere" comprehensive to involution and evolution articles ^[17]172.248.114.28 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC) arnold

It would be more helpful if you could explain how this would be or is supposed to be within the scope of the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Today the role of psychology(mind) is accepted as influencing interpretation and meaning in Evolution research, Chardin and Noosphere further the meaning of this research and mans place in evolution. Comprehension of evolution is more direct when observation of oneself and the physical-empirical world are seen at the same time UTC)arnold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.114.28 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

::Perhaps it would be better included in "Evolutionary psychology"? This article concerns itself only with biological evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an article on it, it seems quite a minor thing. No need to mention it here or at the evol psych article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps it would be better to expand on the article itself?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The state of psychology today is-"nothing exist without one's mind"-so I've chosen the broadest field for evolution induces involution(UTC)arnold

Except that what you're proposing is too narrow a topic to be considered relevant in a page about biological evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:35, 14 December

Involution research today is about "our evolutionary existence"(biology) as a preparation for consciousness (noosphere-cosmology). Evolution today extends to all matter in space-time: Involution extends to consciousness in space-time(UTC)arnold

(restoring comment deleted by IP TWICE). It is also irrelevant for an article as general as evol psych, or psychology. Instead you should expand the article on the concept.Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As it was already explained to you, what you are proposing is not all relevant to this article, which is about biological evolution only.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your time..Today the state of biological evolution here on Earth is "biology attracting consciousness", we can be "present to biological consciousness"...This will be my last attempt to show a place for involution and evolution at one time..once again thankyou for your time...(UTC)arnold

You haven't actually explained anything, let alone explain specifically why your definition of "Involution" belongs in "Evolution," which specifically discusses only biological evolution. Please also be aware that Wikipedia is also not the place for peddling your personal pet theories.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose...Evolution induces Involution...through noting other "causes of evolution" by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and today "psychology-consciousness". These two Wiki articles, should be noted in content, and compared to each other as spontaneous actualities in time.^[18]76.89.147.44 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)arnold

Not done. As it was repeatedly suggested to you before, it would be more constructive if you were to try to expand the relevant pages on Involution, rather than attempting to ask to shoehorn it into this page, where it is not a relevant topic. That, and please do not peddle your personal pet theories on the talkpages.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please check what I wrote in "Suggested Introductory Sentence Change" in this "talk evolution=content this page" and you might focus on the word "intension"..I have meant no harm thanks172.248.114.28 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)arnold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.114.28 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that you're not being coherent about how Involution is relevant to this article, which is about biological evolution only.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I included the word "theory" (as in scientific theory) as this is how evolution has been presented in all the scientific textbooks I have read although I certainly have not read them all. If evolution is not a scientific theory, then that word should be removed from the remainder of the article. (It currently appears several times.) I think, however, that all would agree that evolution is a scientific theory. It meets the criteria of being such and is defined as such in most places. Please see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/197367/evolution. Wpete510 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read Evolution as fact and theory Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wpete510, evolution is a fact. There are plenty of mainstream scientific references that confirmed this statement. The phrase "evolution as a theory" is usually used as shorthand for evolution by means of natural selection as well for the explanation of origin of diversity, etc. I hope this clarifies the confusion. As Theroadislong suggested, the article on Evolution as fact and theory might be helpful. Regards, danielkueh (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt responses. I am not saying evolution is not a fact. Of course it is. That, however, does not preclude it from being a theory (even as it says in Evolution as fact and theory). We cannot escape the fact that evolution is a scientific theory. Of course it is so well-substantiated that it is a fact, but it is still a theory. The scholars who write and edit Encyclopedia Brittanica have affirmed that, so I guess I wonder why there is an objection to that term. Wpete510 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Natural Selection is a theory, evolution is the phenomenon. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "theory" occurs throughout the article in reference to evolution, not just natural selection. So, if that term is used improperly, someone should go through and remove it. Also, how do you account for Britannica's use of the word "theory" as the first word used to define and describe evolution? Wpete510 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wpete510, three things. First, As Dbrodbeck pointed out above, there is a distinction between evolution (a fact) and evolution by means of natural selection (a theory). This article is about evolution in all instances and not just evolution by natural selection. Also, if you read the Britannica article that you gave carefully, you will notice that the article describes evolution in the two ways (the first and seventh paragraphs) that I mentioned. Second, there are plenty of sources from scientific journals and academic books that clearly describe evolution as a fact. if you go through archive #60, you'll see a list of high quality sources that support this statement. Finally, we go with the scientific consensus. The consensus at this time and very possibly to the end of time, is that evolution is a fact. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I do not object to calling it a fact. I know that evolution is a huge topic, and that no intelligent person in the scientific community disputes that it occurs. But, there would be many scientific theories where that is the case. Is the article in Brittanica covering a different topic than the Wikipedia article? I ask because I wonder why Brittanica would use "theory" as the very first word to define evolution, but there is apparently a strong objection to it appearing near the beginning of the Wikipedia article.Wpete510 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wpete510, I cannot speak for the writers at Britannica. And quite frankly, I don't care. We stick to the policies of Wikipedia, and not to those of Britannica. Plus, the word theory is already used in the lead (third paragraph), where it fits well with the historical descriptions of Darwin and evolutionary theory. So if you are still hung up on the discrepancy in writing style between Britannica and Wikipedia (and all the other reliable sources), then perhaps you should write to their editor and ask them why don't they describe evolution the way Wikipedia does? Regards. danielkueh (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, at the end of the day, I don't think anyone would hold up Wikipedia as a better source than Encyclopedia Brittanica, but I know that does not really matter. I can see I am outnumbered on the wording (at least among wikipedia editors of this article), so I can let it drop I suppose. Thank you for your interaction.Wpete510 (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gravitation is a fact. But it also has theories to explain the fact. Same so for evolution. We can give examples of the fact of evolution and then use theory to explain how it occurred by natural selection, genetic drift, or hybridization for example. The stickleback fish supermodel is an excellent example of this fact and theory. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Gravitation is a fact." Nope. Gravitation refers to fact. An apple falling is a fact that is explained through gravitational theory. What is gravity, really? It is a field, but then what is a field? Maxwell provided the initial theory development on this followed by Einstein's work, but it is all theory laden. Fact and theory remain separate for good reason. A good clue on the difference between fact and theory is the scope of the term. A specific instance of an apple falling is very simple. Gravitation is a hugely loaded word that covers a great many instances of falling apples. Same so for evolution. If theory becomes fact because it has been so tried and tested, then we step out of bounds of Popper's falsification or fallibilism.184.71.102.86 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a Popper chopper. In the same way that falling is a fact, evolution is a fact. Theories of evolution explain how that fact works, in the same way that various theories of gravity explain falling. Not to be confused with intelligent falling. . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Popper chopper" -Nice! I am not one, but Nice! People seem to be getting the colloquial use of the term fact confused with fact as it is used in scientific logic. Fact is not what is true, but it is anything that exists independent of our imagined beliefs. Is evolution something that exists or is it something that occurs? We use scientific inference and logic to find truth, but that is what theory gives us. We can observe facts, which then become conceptions of fact as we relay them through data (statistical tables, etc). However, theory is still needed to determine the validity of a fact via a critical test. "In the same way that falling is a fact, evolution is a fact." - What is falling? The apple? What is evolving? The apple. The apple falling is the fact, gravity is the theory that explains the mechanisms and principles involved in the fall (e.g., terminal velocity). The apple falling is the fact, evolution is the theory that explains the mechanism(s) that brought the apple about in the first place. Is the apple evolving or is it a population of apples? If you want to apply this broadly and say that life is evolving is a fact, then is is also a fact that life is always evolving or that there is a tendency to evolve? The difficult thing with evolution is that we are dealing with a long time span - historical inference. You could say that single origin of life is a fact, but it is still referenced through evolutionary theory using evidence - e.g., single genetic code and understanding of "uniformitarianism" principles of replicating ancestor decendant sequence leading to an inference of homology. You can have an event that is a fact and in this way natural selection may be able to step in. It is an event - statistical like - occurring in populations. Some facts my become known through the logic of inference, but where to peel away at evolution and identify where it become fact and where it becomes theory is an impossible thing to do. It cannot be both at the same time, otherwise the scientific methodology becomes illogical. This is the general understanding that logicians have given on the scientific method.184.71.102.86 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

O rly? What makes you think apples falling is a fact, or indeed that you really exist? You could be part of the Matrix, or under the matress like a troll. Which we shouldn't really feed. . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Because I subscribe to realism and use theory to provide an explanatory context for understanding truth and reality. The matrix is a story and I am not a solipsist. A falling apple is something that can be observed, or you can tell me that you saw an apple fall and I can decide to believe you (not too extraordinary to waste my time) or subject this to some kind of evidentual test - is the apple bruised? Calling me a troll!? - name calling is the last resort of someone who has run out of defensible reason.184.71.102.86 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is not comparing apples to apples. You can use the words theory and fact in different ways, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the aim is communication. In messy reality a thing can be described as a "fact" and a "theory" at the same time, without absurdity. That one can define meanings of those two words where it is not logical is not necessarily important or useful information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"In messy reality" - like made up stuff? In realism, where science seems applicable - a thing CANNOT be described as a "fact" and a "theory" at the same time, unless that thing is a conception of theory, but not the theory itself as it is used in the scientific community. Does evolution fall under a different set of logic from the other sciences? I do not think you want to make this claim. If biology is using some other kind of "logic", then this is the only way in which you can use fact and theory at the same time, Other scientific disciplines have never used this approach and it is inconsistent with the philosophy as it has been understood more broadly.184.71.102.86 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you do not define "realism" like I would. Do you say that it is important to science to avoid saying that gravity is both a fact and a theory?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Realism is a philosophy that Charles Darwin held in high standard and that is the one that I subscribe to as well. Gravity is a theory. There are alternative means that can be proposed to explain apples falling - Quantum field theory, for example.184.71.102.86 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Where does the graviton fit into the "fact" of gravity? This is and example of why philosophers of the scientific method have always held a strict delineation between fact and theory. The two do not mix for good logical reason.184.71.102.86 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Or Loop quantum gravity, or doubly special relativity, or string theory? All give different theoretical perspective on gravity. Theory referencing to fact, that's how the science of physics operates and I doubt biology has a different philosophy.184.71.102.86 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Effectively you are discussing your preferences concerning word definitions, and touching upon philosophical questions which Wikipedia can not solve in any final way. Such discussions can go forever. But we have used the words theory and fact because we are following the way people write about evolution in the real world, in real English, in reliable published sources. There are no god-given definitions of theory and fact to allow us do better than this. So anyway: do you have any concrete proposals for editing this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that you have it all sorted out and understand it well enough. I guess discussion is futile? Comment: "you are discussing your preferences"...oh really? That is a large accusation. These are not my 'preferences', it is general knowledge in the philosophy of science what fact and theory is. "we are following the way people write about evolution in the real world, in real English" - sorry for using play English. What is up with the editors in here? You try to give an honest discussion and the only way that people can find a defense is to launch personal criticism?? Is this a page about science? Can it be discussed using rational discourse? "So anyway: do you have any concrete proposals for editing this article?" - Not really, I am finished. Futile in here.184.71.102.86 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gravitation refers to the fact. An apple falling is a fact that is explained through gravitational theory." The apple falling isn't a fact-in space it wouldn't fall. The apples actions aren't significant it is the 'attractive force" that acts on the apple (we call gravity) that is the issue and the fact-it acts on everything not just apples. You aren't explaining why apples fall but what is the force that acts on the apples. The different theories refer to the force not the fall of the apple . An apple falling is explained by a fundamental force called gravity and we have numerous theories to what this force is. If all the theories prove wrong it doesn't negate the force exists we call gravity (the force is not dependent on the theory). If all of evolution theory were suddenly proven incorrect that still wouldn't negate modifications of organisms with successive generations occurs. Evolution doesn't refer to the theory-it refers to the process of descent with modification. We have theories to explain this phenomenon of descent with modification like Natural selection, genetic drift, hybridization, kin selection, etc. So you can have Evolution by Natural selection, or Evolution by Genetic drift. I know where you are coming from but I think the average reader won't understand the distinction and just add confusion. You can get into the same philosophical problems with "time" too. I think this makes sense but I have a terrible cold and my head is in a fog. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"The apple falling isn't a fact-in space it wouldn't fall."...Now we are getting somewhere! You are starting understand what the difference is. The apple falling is a fact, because it is a specific instance of an apple falling. The reason why gravity is the theory is because it explains the behaviour of the apple falling on the earth versus in space. An apple falling in space is a fact as well. It would fall - the Earth is "falling", it would just fall differently and the forces of gravity would be very weak. Gravity is the theory that explains the different facts.184.71.102.86 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you will run into problems when you qualify many science articles as theory-The theory of Evolution, The Theory of Gravitation, The Theory of the Atom, The Theory of Electromagnetism radiation, muscle contraction by the sliding filament theory, etc. An article that states white light is a theory describing the theoretical fundamental force of a specific wavelength electromagnetic radiation and it has a dual nature of particle and wave will quickly lose a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.190.145 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 December 2013‎

In answer to GetAgrippa:

The fall of an apple is an objective fact, which we can observe. Isaac Newton invented a theory to explain the way that apples fall (amongst other things), in which he introduced the idea that the fall is due to a "force". It is now known that Newton's theory is inexact. The theory which has replaced it (general relativity) does not attribute the falling to a "force". It is thus a misunderstanding to say that "the force is not dependent on the theory": one of the two widely recognised theories uses the concept of a "force", and the other doesn't, so the "force" is very much dependent on the theory. It is also a mistake to say that "the different theories refer to the force not the fall of the apple", not only because only one of the theories refers to a "force", but also because even that theory refers not only to the force but also to the observable physical events that it sees as mediated by forces, such as the fall of an apple. The observable events are objective facts, while the mechanisms used to model them (such as forces, space-time curvature, or whatever) are theoretical constructs, and have no verifiable existence outside the theories of which they form a part. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

True a bend in space-time isn't a force but still the distinction posited will not be recognized by the average reader and will be confused. I doubt many physicist would question the "theory of the atom" no more than biologist the "theory of evolution". Explain white light as a human concept of the perception of certain wavelengths of eletromagnetic radiation is based on house of card theories. Theories about photoreceptors, theories of the dual nature of light or whatever, theories how the human brain interprets that info. We would have to qualify everything as a theory and provide evidence to substantiate each tacit. In muscle mechanics we no longer call contractility is based on the sliding filament "theory" but the siding filament mechanism of interaction of actin and myosin. I don't know what you mean by "verifiable existence" so physicist can't test their theories? So there is no verifiable existence for Black Holes? No evidence for an atom? See the confusion. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I found this quote, which summarizes the distinction nicely:

"Over the decades as more and more was learned about evolution, many evolutionists stated that Biological Evolution was no longer a theory, but was factual or a fact (= an objective empirical observation) which confused the issue even more as a sharp difference exists between scientific theories and objective empirical observations. In most of the statements that evolution is a �scientific fact�, the author actually meant that historical evolutionary theory (= the general notion that living organisms descended with modifications from a common ancestor) is so exceedingly well tested (= well corroborated, Popper 1959; 1968: 32–34) that it can for all intense purposes be accepted as factual. However, it is still better to state that historical evolutionary theory is an exceedingly well corroborated theory and that massive counter tests supported by strong empirical objective observations are needed to disprove it. Facts, as used in science, are quite different from theories and the two are best kept strictly separated."

These are not my personal views - btw. The strict philosophical distinction between fact and theory is expressed strongly in the wider literature on science. Ian Hacking, for example, has written on this as well - stating that fact and theory are separate things. To say that evolution is both fact and theory is prejudice against theory and favoritism for fact, nothing logical about it. Theory is the greatest tool that humankind has created for accessing truth about reality. Facts are simple things that most people can agree upon.

How will this help the article? Well...if it cannot be sorted out and agreed upon from the outset what evolution is, then it is not going to be very simple to write an article on it. I am certain (with supporting evidence in support of this) that evolution is a theory and it is not a fact. Common descent is a fact. Examples of natural selection in action supply facts. Fossils in different geographic localities showing relations of common decent are facts. Evolution is the theory that explains these and many other facts about biology and geology. There is a lot of confusion in this article and it may be due to this level of confusion between fact and theory.184.71.102.86 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please quote a source saying something about this which is directly relevant to this article; AND/OR Please use this talk page for discussing concrete ideas which could lead to improvements of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the "education" Mr. High and mighty. Who are you to think you are in a position to give directives in an open source forum? I came in here to offer my two cents and help out on the topic, not to be lectured. "Please quote a source saying something...directly relevant to this article" - the sourced includes multiple references to the topic of evolution!! The article is about evolution. The article is about the thread of discussion. Obviously, an honest discussion is not welcomed. Your statement presents an obvious bias - re-read it and ask if your post actually does what it states. Nope, not helpful. As stated above - I am finished. I thought I would give Wikipedia a try and I was interested in this topic having studied it as my major in philosophy, but I have been called a troll, it has been stated that my contributions are 'not-concrete enough to lead to improvements', that I am expressing only my own opinions on the topic and when I provided a reference - well it isn't relevant enough to this article. That's quite a lot to take in after trying to help out only after a week. Good luck with this. Suggest that editors work on their general philosophy of civility and decorum. A huge waste of volunteer time to come in here and be personally attacked. I'll go and knock my head on a wall, more enjoyable.184.71.102.86 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are taking my short post the wrong way unfortunately. We discussed more above, but my short post is pointing to the fact that in the end we have to come back to being practical on this talkpage. This talkpage is NOT a FORUM, but is meant to be used specifically for practical discussion. In fact, please see WP:NOTFORUM, which is kind of what I was thinking you would understand by my short post. The point about finding more specific evolution-related sources is that this is the Wikipedia article about evolution, and not about Popper. If experts on evolution all used terminology in a Popperian way, then this would be important to us in trying to reflect what they say, but clearly Popper's approach is not even dominant amongst experts in methodology of science. So discussion of the Popperian approach would be a major digression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem and agree with your distinction between fact and theory-I've said the same thing here in the past. But it is philosophical distinction that will confuse the average reader. Further you support your posits as facts but they are opinions or theories of Popper. It gets convoluted.I think you would be best to address the Fact and Theory FAQ. You aren't the first editor to mention this distinction. It's somewhat paradoxical to say something is a "fact" and "theory" but that's where the consensus of scientist hold. I guess we would have to make clear all the criticisms of Popper ideas and mention other philosophical ideas too-so maybe this should be a separate article on the philosophy of evolution. If philosophy is your "bag" perhaps you would like to get involved an write such an article-lots of articles have sprouted from this one. I should mention that there was nothing insulting in Lancaster's comments-he was trying to be helpful to a new editor-so it seems you have an "attitude" which there is no need for such. There are some great editors here-just lost a really great one recently. Comments are welcome, but logistically articles can be so long, etc. There are rules. So new editors are welcome and comments welcome, but there is no guarantee that your contributions will be added to the article. Few of mine have. So don't give up or get perturbed-keep contributing. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In your defense Encyclopedia Britannica states: "evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory." But if we examine your typical college Biology text like Campbell we find: Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations which blends descent with modification and Mendelian genetics-population genetics and reflects the modern synthesis. No mention of "theory". The reason as I stated before while Biology is the study of life it is all based on theory-a house of cards of theories. Like note the Britannica last sentence-The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biology theory. Sheesh that really says a lot. A law is consistently found to be true-a theory can't be "consistently found to be true" and is a more general explanatory statement-but when does it become too perverse to really question it -especially after over a hundred years and different supportive evidence and more importantly lots of evidence supportive of the "predictive" ability of the theory-chaotic events are unpredictable but generally it is predictive from the articles on the Darwinian possibilities of mutations to the Grants Thirty year Galapagos study where they found "evolution can be predicted in the short term from a knowledge of selection and inheritance. However, in the long term evolution is unpredictable because environments, which determine the directions and magnitudes of selection coefficients, fluctuate unpredictably. " GetAgrippa (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention in the lead when evolution appeared. We can say "mid-19th" century or elaborate on when Darwin started working on evolution and when he published his work on evolution (both of which are in mid-19th). As a sidenote, common practice is to use the date that something appears in public when dating scientific work. In anycase, something must be added, the date of publication or both dates, or just "mid-19th century". Later in the lead it is mentioned when genetics is integrated to evolution (early 20th century), it is a natural maturing step for the lead to add something about when evolution started as a scientific discipline, giving a basic timeline of its development. Nxavar (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We do state in the lead when evolution appeared on Earth, 3.8 billion years ago. As for when the concept began, the history section points to Anaximander c. 300 B.C. though arguably species fixism only really goes back to Ray in the 17th century, while Maupertuis produced early evolutionary ideas in 1751. The lead currently notes CD's contribution, of course he was made fully aware of evolutionary ideas in 1827, and started working on it in 1836, so really it's the early 19th century. But why put this in the lead? . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict. Sorry for being redundant) Nxavar, please bear in mind that the purpose of the lead (WP:lead) is to summarize the main points of this article, which is about evolution in general and not the History of evolutionary thought or Charles Darwin, also see WP:undue. If readers would like to know more about specific dates of various publications and the development of evolutionary thought, they can go to the History section or to a decent article that covers the History of evolutionary thought. Anyway, I reverted the following sentence for two reasons:

"In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection."

First, as Dave correctly pointed out, it is just wrong and unnecessary. Second, I don't mean to be rude, but the above sentence really looks awkward and "tacky." It has the effect of diminishing the overall prose of the lead by making the lead look like a list of bullet points: in the mid-19th century, we have this; in the 20th century, we have that. Not an improvement for an FA article. danielkueh (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your considerations. What I had in mind is that evolution is, among other things, a scientific discipline, so it would be important to know when it started. As to when it a appeared as a notion, why not mention Anaximander in the lead too? Maybe that's more important because most people think that evolution is a notion that appeared in modern history. It looks a little hard to inject this information in the lead as it is right now, maybe a small rewrite is required. Nxavar (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, as you appreciate it's not a simple question and since this isn't the main article about the history of evolutionary thought, we don't want to go into complex detail in the lead. If you can suggest concise improvements that will be welcome. I suggest drafting wording on this talk page for discussion, . dave souza, talk 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nxavar, if you are looking for an article that focuses on evolution as a scientific discipline, then I would recommend that you take a look at Evolutionary biology. danielkueh (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked the article on Evolutionary biology and it appears that this is narrower than evolution as a science in general. Charles Darwin is never mentioned for example and the focus is on 20th century developments. I think that here is the obvious place to put some historical context on the theory of evolution in terms of a general timeline, as far as the lead goes. What do you think about the following:

Although the notion of evolution of species has existed since ancient times, it was in the mid-19th century when the first scientific argument on the theory of evolution was introduced by Charles Darwin. He explained evolution as a process generated by natural selection, which can be inferred by observing these three facts about populations:(...)

Nxavar (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Evolution is not a notion and it is just simplistic to describe all pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution as "notions." Darwin was certainly not the first to propose scientific arguments for evolution (theory or fact). He was the first to propose evolution by natural selection. Pre-Darwinian arguments (e.g., Lamarck) may have been inaccurate, but they were certainly not protoscience. Other than the content, the quality of the prose is not that great as it sounds very wishy and washy. I don't want to sound like a broken record but I wish to reiterate the point that this is not the page on the history of evolutionary thought. We already have a fairly detailed historical section in this article and an entire article that is devoted to the history of evolutionary thought. Also, this article is about evolution in general and not just about evolution by natural selection. There's also a dedicated article for that. Before you devote too much energy on deciding how best to rephrase the present sentence, I think it is more fruitful to seek consensus first (WP:consensus), for these proposed changes. Without it, these changes are unlikely to go through. I also recommend that you take a look at the archives (starting with #60) of this Talk page to get a sense of the laborious group effort that went into writing the present lead. On a separate note, if you want to introduce or expand on the historical elements in the Evolutionary Biology article, you're welcome to try. That article is still very much a work in progress. danielkueh (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the prose is of medium-quality that is not a reason in itself to oppose a contribution (unless there is some strong weekness in it). In fact the change is presented firstly here so that it can be improved upon by anyone who can. However, consensus is important, but that is still no reason to oppose! I am seeking consensus, since my first post. That's what a talk page discussion is about by default. As to whether evolution is a notion, I do not think we should get philosophical and deal with the question of what is evolution. Evolution can be many things and notion is one that the current article accepts since it is used in the History section. If you disagree with the wording "notion", propose another term. I don't see any substantial argument in your response, sorry. Nxavar (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I opposed the proposed sentence and I have provided others reasons along with the one describing its mediocre prose. These reasons are in addition to the ones given by Dave Souza and me. You can dismiss our reasons as not being "substantial", but you are not going to get very far by pressing on with your agenda and ignoring or not addressing our concerns and the cited WP policies. With respect to the word "notion," it is used only once in this article to describe the discredited hypotheses about evolution. Finally, if you don't know what evolution is (this is not being a "philosophical", it is clearly defined in the first sentence of the lead) or think that evolution can be "many things," including "notions," then you are clearly in over your head as far as editing a science article about evolution. danielkueh (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just intrested in puting some dates nothing else. Still making irrelevant arguments so far as adding some date is concerned. I don't think there is a single Wikipedia policy against giving a starting point for the development of a scientific discipline. That's why Charles Darwin's work is mentioned in the first place. The question here is about adding dates, nothing else. Also, personal attacks are not helpful, in fact they run against Wikipedia policies. See WP:PERSONAL. Nxavar (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead section is a brief summary of the article and does not need that kind of detail in it.--Charles (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nxavar, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but if you don't address each of our comments or concerns, but just dismiss them as "irrelevant" or not "substantial," then you're just not going to get very far here. If you asked me to explain my comments further, I would be more than happy to do so. And I am sorry if I sounded harsh when I was responded to your other comments such as "Evolution can be many things and notion is one that the current article accepts since it is used in the History section," but I really think you need to think those statements through. If you have access to an introductory biology textbook or talk to advance high school biology instructor, you will see that there is something seriously very wrong with that statement and your proposed sentence above. In the past, we have had to protect this article against trolls who come to the talk page and insist that evolution is "just a theory," i.e. an untested hypothesis from their perspective. I am not suggesting that you are like them but it really doesn't help if we start calling evolution a "notion," assume that it can be "many things," or think we are just being "philosophical" when we define it. danielkueh (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Evolution is a natural process not a notion or any kind of man made concept. What you seem to be referring to is human understanding of the process and we have other articles which deal with that while this article is mainly about the natural process.--Charles (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My purpose is not to present evolution as a notion. That was just wording open to discussion. The whole edit is open to discussion, and since the part refering to evolution as a notion is problematic I edited it out. The edit now just adds chronological information for Charles Darwin work, with some rewrite to make it a better read. Nxavar (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, please don't edit your proposed text after it that has been commented on. It will confuse other editors who would like to follow this discussion (see WP:REDACTED). If you wish to change it, then at least, use the strikethrough function. But a better approach would be to place another proposed text at the bottom of this thread. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I appologize, this is my first experience in this kind of discussion. I appreciate the advice. Nxavar (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Second edit proposal:

In the mid-19th century the first scientific argument on the theory of evolution was introduced by Charles Darwin. He explained evolution as a process generated by natural selection, which can be inferred by observing these three facts about populations:(...)

Since the part refering to evolution as a notion is problematic I edited it out. The edit now just adds chronological information for Charles Darwin work, with some rewrite to make it a better read. Nxavar (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Factually wrong, Darwin did not introduce the first scientific argument about evolution. Evolution wasn't described as being Generated by natural selection. Also, to agree with the above, it's the wrong content for the lead of this article. I'll try and work a proposal together for alternate wording that might fit. SPACKlick (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading this garbage I realize the whole article needs a rewrite and it is full of errors. Just Kidding!!!! APRIL Fools! Thought I'd strike early. A month (last post feb 3) with no activity is like some record for this article. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand the context of the referenced article, but in the section about speciation, there is this sentence: "and the speciation process has been repeated in the laboratory, which allows the study of the genetic mechanisms involved in this process.[231]" with reference 231 pointing to this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X07001712

However, reading through the article, I cannot see where it identifies any laboratory repetition of the speciation of Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis arenosa into Arabidopsis suecica.

--Zany 001 (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article about hybridization and speciation that was repeated in the lab. But this isn't the article I am looking for-I remember one they discovered the gene alleles that had shifted to produce the species and then mimicked the creation of the species from wild type in the lab. Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301 no. 5637 pp. 1211-1216 DOI: 10.1126/science.1086949 RESEARCH ARTICLE Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg1,*, Olivier Raymond2, David M. Rosenthal3, Zhao Lai1, Kevin Livingstone1, Takuya Nakazato1, Jennifer L. Durphy1, Andrea E. Schwarzbach4, Lisa A. Donovan3, Christian Lexer1 Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I work as a docent at the California Academy of Sciences and I would like to include a link to my summary of the evolution of life on Earth, which I believe is accurate according to the latest, generally accepted, scientific findings. Lottamiata (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a cursory read-It ignores other theories on many topics. Further some confusion like "molten iron mantle and nickel core," The core of the earth is solid iron-nickle and the mantle is predominately solid silicates but there is the liquid outer portion. It's fine work but ignores other published data so isn't NPOV. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone recognize where the definition comes from ? The opening is "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." without a cite. I tried google and get ... different definitions for Evolution, some similar, but not seeing source identified to some authored book or scientific society. I thought I would try here rather than just paste a cite tag on it... Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article and typically does not use citations. Indeed, that (the definition) is a pretty good summary of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, view that it's an article paraphrase not externally standard definition makes sense as to why it didn't google or match authoritive locations or consistency and (ironically) that it did evolve here over time. Markbassett (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Among other things, it is not necessary to cite the lede, as the lede's purpose is to summarize the article. Claims made in the lede do not necessarily need to be cited, either, provided they are cited in the portions of the article where they are explained in detail. Plus, it would be preferable to develop a lede that was not directly copied or lifted from another source.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello to all. I added this part in the already mentioned section:

"Other authors with great authority in the field, since the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, especially the Russian zoologist and biologists who had their analysis made in the regions of Asian Russia, such as Proffesor Kessler and the prominent anarchist Peter Kropotkin are proposing more cooperative version of the theory. They are stating that Darwin and it's basic theory of evolution has been interpreted in it's most narrowest form by its best propagators, such as Julian Huxley and Herbert Spencer. Mutual struggle is accepted as one of the laws of Nature in their interpretations, but they claim that by it self it can't be the only factor of progressive evolution. "Of course", they say," 'Survival of the fittest' is the key factor of evolution, but Mutual struggle doesn't gives an answer to the question: 'Who are the fittest?'". There have been thousands of examples of mutual support and aid in all sorts of species and in every class of animals the most sociable ones are the fittest in their respective classes. As a factor of evolution, Mutual Aid is the main evolutionary factor that made humans succeed in their struggle for existence and gave them the opportunity to be the fittest and most progressive of all the species."

I was said by Physicsandwhiskey that he was not sure how this part was relevant for the subject and gave me an advice to open a discussion on this subject.

Well, here it is. My point is that it is relevant, because even then (in 19th and 20th century), but also now, there are few misconceptions about what is "evolution" and who are the "fittest" in that evolution. Mutual aid and support is totally off the list for many thinkers even today. Those ways of thinking has brought Social-Darwinism, Fascism and Nazism to it's quasi-justification. So, my point is that it's of course a cultural and social response, since it has to do everything with with culture and sociability.

I must add that I know that the concept that the 19th and early 20th century evolutionist had about evolution is way different from the modern concept of evolution, but on the macro-scale, the use of mutual-aid, as well as mutual-struggle, has helped in giving progress to most of the successful species, by which it can not be even said that it isn't scientific.

So, it is on subject, it's scientific and it has sources. I don't know in which point it is off-topic. If you have any other advice about placing that part in other subject of "evolution" which would be more appropriate, just say so.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastapunk (talk • contribs) 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should note that evolutionist (as you rightly said) philosophical thought of the period you mention is political, with indeed distasteful moral overtones, and has little to do with biological evolution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that. But the scientific fields are overlapping in this point, as I see it. And besides, the scientist here cited were all biologists and zoologist from the late 19th and early 20th century. For instance, Kessler had nothing to do with politics. On the other hand, it is our duty not just to create an encyclopedia with the thought: "Well, OK, this is the biological part - if you need something more about the philosophical, or social influence that this subject creates: check on somewhere else", but I think that it is of extreme value that we at least briefly mention the connection of biology with social, moral and political sciences, since people come here and create their own points of view and then cite wiki for every need they have. Mutual aid as a consequence of evolution is getting as low attention as it got in the 19th and 20th century and the focus is still on Mutual struggle. If you don't say anything in this subject about mutual struggle - that's not a problem, since most of the people are familiar with the connection between evolution and "the survival of the fittest", but if you don't mention mutual aid, than you are a direct associate of the creation and maintenance of "mutual struggle and nothing else" culture, which is an "everyone for his own and the Government for everyone" way of thinking. We can't say that Wikipedia has no social and political value.

Once more, you have a good point about everything you said, but I think that we do need to get out from that scope. If I can't change your mind, though, that's still OK.

Cheers,

Rastapunk (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Rastapunk

I think we must include the theory of Mutual Aid, at least for historical purposes. Even if we ignore the analogies, it does describe biological evolution and as such belongs to this article. Nxavar (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Evolution has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second sentence of this entry the term "organization" is spelled organisation with an "s" rather than a "z". Maybe this is just a European spelling? Dtheis (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is in British English—note the use of the term eye colour, for instance. Thus, organisation is the correct spelling for that variety of English. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, I edited the caption of an image on this page from "As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolised evolution." to "As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body were used to satirise evolution." I was reverted by User:Dave souza, with the edit summary "phrasing correct per source, see Browne". I've checked Browne's book, and I do not see how it supports the word "symbolise" as opposed to "satirise". Indeed, it specifically mentions that "the Parisian satirical journal La Petite Lune dangled him in the guise of a monkey". I would appreciate some clarification from Dave souza as to why he feels the "symbolise" wording better reflects the source. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong cartoon, the one on the page is from The Hornet; on p. 377 Browne discusses how Darwin's beard was a bonus for cartoonists, "his general hairiness begged to be turned into animal fur. Add a tail, and there was an image that shrieked of ape or monkey ancestors". Re the Hornet image, "Such a picture of Darwin-as-ape or Darwin-as-monkey readily identified him as the author of the theory in the same way as a military longboot might have identified the Duke of Wellington". p. 378 "A hairy apish Darwin and a tree became readily recognisable images of evolution–perhaps as recognisable to Victorians as the double helix of DNA is to people today". The double helix is a symbol of genetics, and over the pages listed Browne covers how Darwin-as-ape was used in a symbolic way that didn't occur with Huxley or Wallace. The effect to a large effect promoted evolutionary ideas rather than attacking them: "Indeed this interweaving of evolutionary theory and portraits of Darwin probably contributed materially to the sense that evolutionism and Darwinism were one and the same thing." These were satirists or comedic cartoonists using a symbol, not necessarily "satirising evolution". The La Petite Lune image satirises "how Darwin's ideas were taken up by positivists" such as Auguste Comte and seems to be satirising materialist philosophy rather than evolution. A complex few pages, the point in my view is that Darwin-as-ape became as popular symbol, much appreciated by Darwin himself, rather than the attacks on evolution so familiar in the modern creation-evoution controversy. So, in my opinion "used to satirise evolution" is wrong, and misleading to a modern reader. Got any alternative suggestions for the wording? . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. It sounds like you're right to use "symbolise". —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Evolution has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For greater clarity add "gradual" to the opening sentence changing, "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." to "Evolution is the gradual change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Dtheis (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd carry out the change myself if it wasn't the WP:LEDE. I'll second the change, and back anyone who does carries it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, instead, if no one provides a good objection to it by the time I remember to get to it tomorrow or the next day, I'll make the change. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both statements. Plus, I believe "gradual" supported by the provided citations and used elsewhere in the article as well. Mophedd (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

See punctuated equilibrium, but it would be a good idea to add "gradual" anyways. Evolution is most certainly gradual relative to the human lifespan, and we don't want to confuse individuals who might have the misconception that individuals can evolve. Baconfry (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The punctuated equilibrium article has a section about the multiple meanings of "gradualism", however. Richard Dawkins (the source for much of that section) even argues that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism. Mophedd (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done by User:Ian.thomson. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. Changing the definition in such a contentious article needs more discussion. You should wait longer than just one day before changing it. That gives other editors a chance to chime in. Did anyone search the talk page archives to read about previous definition consensus? What source in the article supports the "gradual" statement? Saying evolution is most certainly gradual without source confirmation is walking the OR line. In regards to punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, those are theories "in" evolutionary biology. Does that mean it applies to evolution as a whole? Do we have a source for that? Does a majority of dictionaries and textbooks use the word gradual? Thanks.Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the talk page FAQ question 5 states "Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years." To be honest, it should already say "gradual", "over time", "over successive generations", or something to that effect. The point is, it takes time. There is also this which says "over time", as does this just to name a couple. If you need more refs, I'm more than willing to provide them. Simply reverting an edit because it's to a contentious article makes no sense, though. Was it correct? Was it concise? Would the lede still summarize the article acceptably? Thoughts? Mophedd (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Simply reverting an edit because it's to a contentious article makes no sense, though" That's pretty ignorant. It wasn't reverted because it's a contentious article. It was reverted because of the questions that needed to be addressed.

"it should already say "gradual", "over time", "over successive generations", or something to that effect" Are you saying you didn't see this part "change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"?

You didn't answer my question concerning the talk archives. If, as you claim, this should already be in the article (which it is), you don't think such an obvious omission may have been addressed before? I suggest you look at archive 64, a lot of work was done to arrive at the current definition. Dkspartan1 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Only reliable sources are relevant. No one cares how much work went into an article if it's unsourced or can be falsified by reliable sources. Accurate is better. I believe adding "gradual" would benefit the article (as was stated above). I tried to provide two easy sources to get the ball rolling on "gradual", or "over time". I provided a couple sources, but if you don't like them, I'm sure many more can be found (I grabbed the first 2 I saw on google as an example). The FAQ question 5 states that "Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years." I believe that statement can be reliably sourced many times over. I you don't agree, either Q5 on this talk page should be under discussion, or this policy should. I read archive 64, BTW, but I didn't see suggestions for adding "gradual" directly to the lede, or really anywhere, for that matter. Since adding "gradual" is the current proposal, it can be sourced, I believe it adds greater clarity and is an improvement, I'm forced to agreed. Are you opposed to this proposal? Do you have compromise or alternative? A competing proposal? Would more sources help? There's a section and article about how evolutionary adaptations can be created within an organism's life and passed onto offspring (so called Neo-Lamarckism), flying in the face of almost all Darwinian theories. Would we be giving undue weight by mentioning this, also? Mophedd (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting the "gradual" edit is essentially saying that there's a chance that a consensus could be reached that evolution is NOT gradual. Is it possible? Instead of just bringing up how we lack sources from people who care about whether evolution is explicitly stated to be "gradual" or not, it might be better to bring up the actual argument against evolution being gradual, if that argument exists and doesn't consist of random exceptions here and there. It's like deleting a statement that says that mammals are placental because of three exceptions. Let's give the anti-gradual party another day to make their presence known, but I'm sure calling it a "gradual change" is the right way to go. Baconfry (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. If you want to add gradual, the burden is on you to support it. The sources provided don't say it's gradual. It only explains that they happen over time, which is how it's already described in the article. Dkspartan1 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument, and I suggest it ends now. Are you seriously suggesting that "evolution happens over time" is in some crucial way different from "evolution is gradual"? And that the wording requires a source? Preposterous. They amount to the same thing, and you are needlessly warring about pure semantics. Correct me if I am wrong, providing appropriate citations, but no credible authority in the history of research on the topic has ever suggested that evolution happens instantaneously. Clearly that is impossible, and rational people don't need to argue the toss about it. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose addition of gradual to definition. Evolution can occur quickly or slowly. Adding gradual to the definition would no longer be accurate because we would be excluding instances that would be considered not gradual (either on a human or evolutionary timescale). Many if not most examples are slow or gradual, but it's not particularly difficult to envision bottlenecks or a trait rapidly spreading through a population if there is strong selection pressure (e.g. Peppered moth evolution). Time doesn't really play a role in what evolution is, but rather changes over generations. How fast or slow those changes happen isn't what defines evolution. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, as what Kingofaces said, "gradual" is extremely subjective when talking about evolution, especially when you don't specify which biological structure or taxon you're talking about, such as appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria versus loss of toes in horses versus trends in brachiopod evolution. If one has to add a modifier, perhaps "incremental" would be much better?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See, that's the thing. Rate of evolution depends too much on generation time, making evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria considerably less gradual than in mammals. Nevertheless, evolution is still gradual enough so that you can't stare at something and watch it evolve, which is why I think it's still better to state that it's gradual. Or incremental, which I suppose also makes sense. Baconfry (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is gradual on what time scale though? Depending on who the reader is, gradual can have different meanings. That's why it seems better to keep the definition concise rather than adding terms that can muddle things.Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Set aside the gradual issue for a second. I find the first sentence "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." inadequate, a pretty feeble attempt to define a momentous concept that has irreversibly altered the way mankind thinks about itself and its place in the world. That first sentence utterly fails to indicate anything at all about the nature of the change, its direction, its rate or the mechanism which brought it about or the mechanism that perpetuated it, or of its consequences. Then while we are still floundering in a miasma of doubt, before we are even introduced to the possibility that evolution is actually a process rather than just an event, we are subjected to "Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization . . .". This introduction is vague, confusing, unencyclopedic, assumes too much of the reader's background knowledge. We must be able to do better than this. We need to come up with a new form of words that nails the essential features of the concept in as few words as possible.Plantsurfer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. Finally I can feel like I'm doing something important on this page. Here goes. "First of all, evolution itself is not the change. Change arises in genetic mutations, meiotic recombinations in crossover, and loads of other factors like transposons, viral infections, blah blah. Evolution is actually "quality control". It decides which of those random changes will be passed on to the next generation, by virtue of a simple test: all contestants are challenged to a race to see who can reproduce most successfully. Resources are not infinite. Not all of them will achieve their goal. But because the random differences between members of a population are genetic, they can be passed on through reproduction. And chances are that those mutations that made a positive difference to survival and reproduction will be the ones that make it to the next round." Now, of course, that paragraph isn't going into the article as it is. But it's my best attempt at a concise summary of what evolution really is. Did I nail it? Baconfry (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

How about starting with "Evolution is the incremental accumulations of inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Accumulation?? do mammals still have the genes for fins? The possibility of loss must be accommodated also.Plantsurfer (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, (a population) can accumulate and or inherit a net loss of inherited characteristics: both the acquisition and loss of biological features are characteristic changes that can be inherited by successive generations. That, and the limbs of mammals and all other tetrapods are, technically speaking either fins or heavily modified fins.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hairlessness is a change that can be inherited, yes?

Not in my experience, lol! Where is this going? Plantsurfer (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my feeling that the opening statements are somehow inadequate, I have to concede that it is hard to improve on them. I also note that the wording of the first sentence is, whether by accident or design, almost verbatim that of the title of this article: Forbes, A. A. & Krimmel, B. A. (2010) Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):6. I suggest that if we are going to go with that definition it would be appropriate to cite this as a source. It would also provide a reason to fix the wording. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking a step back this discussion seems to be based on the idea that we need to make evolution sound more "momentous"? Is that how scientific concepts should be explained though? I would say that the current wording did indeed come about based upon different aims, i.e. to try to distill the real facts of the matter, keeping in mind that the word is used very flexibly, and not always for momentous things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think part of Wikipedia is defining what a term means, many words are used in many different ways. I remember 'ethnic group' being a pretty vague term before Wikipedia was around. Everyone uses the word 'evolution' in a different way. I don't believe in 'correct' definitions so much as consistent and useful ones. I propose we adopt the following: Evolution: Umbrella term, any change over time, as stated in first sentence of article. Natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, etc... : Mechanisms which explain evolution, the observation. Theories of evolution: A theory to explain one particular facet of evolution in terms of natural history (e.g. Out of Africa Theory, Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event) The other problem with this article is that many scientists were motivated by a desire to explain why livings things are adapted to their environment or to explain the diversity of life. As opposed to Evolution per se The Precambrian rabbit wouldn't falsify Evolution so much as discredit all of our current theories about Evolution. What do we think? Chemical Ace (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said. http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.196.239 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's not add that. It appears to be the misuse of a quote; the same source says that "England's theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection", and you could've mentioned that the person's name was England. Quoting people out of context. Why am I not surprised to see this here? -Baconfry (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Baconfry, are these just random throw-away remarks? I don't understand what you are getting at. Some of English's work, eg , and , seems exceptionally interesting and relevant. It is perhaps a bit early to include it in Wikipedia, but let's see whether it holds up. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive, but I thought this was another example of a good scientist being quoted out of context. I don't know if it was 91.34.196.239's intention, but I'll let it go and see if we can find a place to reference England's work. -Baconfry (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be pretty surprised. Lol. Anyway it's not a mainstream theory. Not even close.Chemical Ace (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that changes in the frequency of genes is 'evolution' misses the point. Isnt the point of evolution that there is speciation as opposed to selective breeding? Isnt evolution still about the origin of the wide variety of species?Mrdthree (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

He was the first person described evolution on animals. Like 1000 years ago before darwin. He must be mentioned in this article. His book "Book of animals" is a really important book in his age and even for these times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.221.216 (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

First - new sections at the bottom of the talk page please. I have moved it there to help ease reading the talk page.

Second - in no way was he the first if he was just 1000 years before Darwin. Several ancient philosophers further than 2000 years back gave crude descriptions of evolution. Truly, the "Book of Animals" is sometimes accused of being plagiarism of Aristotle's work.Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I picked up a textbook and the arguments I grew up with for evolution have been marginalized: fossil record and comparative morphology in favor of a solely genetic definition; is this typical these days? Mrdthree (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the big focus on a genetic explanation of evolution is that, in genetics, one can actually see the mechanics of evolution occurring, whereas in fossils and comparative morphology, you only see its results.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me a genetic argument is only necessary and sufficient when evidence of speciation by altered genetics is provided. By speciation I mean establishment of a colony capable of reproducing and producing fertile offspring for potentially unlimited generations (i.e. a strain can be established that doesnt degrade like the lineage of clones). Has that sort of observation been made in the laboratory? Frankly its difficult for me to imagine that 'evolution' would be a persuasive scientific theory if discussed only as a consequence of genetics-- where would the evidence of intermediate forms come from? On the same note, which class teaches about dinosaurs or other extinct species these days? Mrdthree (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, by focusing just on the genetics aspect, that's like ignoring the forest to focus just on the trees, as fossils, comparative morphology and ecological settings show several of the forces that drive and guide evolution. And the only classes I know of that would focus on an indepth study of dinosaurs and other extinct animals (i.e., more than one class session) are classes that focus exclusively on paleontological topics. A situation that I've personally found to be rarer than hen's teeth.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Archaeopteryx indicate that hen's teeth have been found in palaeontology? . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Being rare doesn't mean being nonexistent, especially since one can grow hen's teeth by delicately transplanting fetal mouse teeth into a chicken embryo, in addition to examining fossils of toothed avians.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Certain geese have teeth. Like the Greylag goose has teeth on both upper and lower. GetAgrippa (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

True teeth or serrated edges of the beak, like in mergansers?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are true teeth because they lost the gene for enamel.But I don't think they are part of the beak-I'll check that out-been a long time. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they aren't true teeth and they are just lamellae from beak. Which I should have remembered birds lost the jaw bones for teeth formation-as many other bones to lighten weight for flight. Dang getting old and losing my edge. GetAgrippa (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Has that sort of observation been made in the laboratory?" We are pretty close to that. Please check out E. coli long-term evolution experiment for more information.--Adam in MO Talk 05:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a great article in layman's terms about the Stickle back fish-which is an evolutionary supermodel. It describes tracing the genetic changes in their evolution. http://www.nature.com/news/stickleback-genomes-reveal-path-of-evolution-1.10392 Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

See my addition. I've read the previous physics and "philosophical" paper that is easier to digest, but I've so far only read the abstract for this newest paper. I didn't even know there were any serious doubts (now resolved?) about evolution's compatibility with quantum theory..

I thought of making Constructor theory of Life a redirect. Should it or Constructor theory be added here under See also (or in main text)? This page is locked and very important, I do want some opinions on this theory before proceding.. I'm only a physics amateur (and interested in biology). comp.arch (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. Can you cite oh say 50 to 100 peer reviewed articles from the biological and especially evolutionary literature that have themselves cited Constructor Theory of Life? Given the tens of thousands of articles in biology published every year, this should be an easy task... Otherwise, my appraisal is that what seems to intrigue you is probably without merit and almost certainly not significant.173.189.73.230 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

According to that Wikipedia article's lede:"... horizontal gene transfer is a highly significant phenomenon and among single-celled organisms perhaps the dominant form of genetic transfer." I think it needs to be given much more prominence here. The VAST majority of organisms on Earth are single celled. If hgt is dominant there, then it is THE dominant transfer mechanism, Q.E.D. I am not sure about the transfer of genetic information (DNA & RNA) from viruses being as significant, but clearly based on the estimates I've seen, viral genetic information comprises a significant part of our DNA and probably should also be mentioned (separately). I understand that this is a fairly "new" area of understanding, but treating Evolution, while ignoring almost completely very important genetic processes seems to be putting our heads in the sand. I'd say that epigenetic phenotype modifications (specifically methylation of DNA/gene silencing) also should be prominently mentioned because both of these things, along with germ cell mutations and somatic variation of the DNA between cells in multicellular organisms (we're all chimera) ADD to, and subtly change, the idea that what we are (genetically) is the product of (only) our parent's DNA.173.189.73.230 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Evolution has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please clarify which type of evolution the author is referring to. There is speciation (which we observe) and macro-evolution (change of kinds, which is not observed). Often, writers put them together as if they are the same, but many have been confused on this issue. This change would take place upon the first two sentences in the article; perhaps it could be changed to "Evolution is of two essential definitions: speciation and macro-evolution. Speciation (which we see today) is variation within a family, while macro-evolution (not observed today) is the change from one kind of organism to another (e.g. cat to dog ... whale to cow.)." It could be something along those lines. If it is scientifically inaccurate, please don't post it, but if it is, please edit the article. 24.57.225.109 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Read Q6 of the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Stickee (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if I might suggest a small shift of emphasis.

The 'theory of evolution' and 'Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection' are often used as synonyms but they are really two different things. Evolution is indisputable fact, Darwin's theory is about the mechanism of evolution by natural selection: it is (slightly) less certain than evolution itself and can thus be argued against. I always try and carefully distinguish between the two lest anyone who thinks they have found a flaw in Darwin's theory think they have also found a flaw in the theory of evolution. Cassandra 2.96.13.183 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Darwin's first version, and the modern standard versions are distinguished in the article? Could you clarify what needs clarifying? You seem to emphasize a concern with the term "natural selection", but the concept of selection (which is actually a word being used metaphorically in biology) is still standard?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe evolution is factual but it is a theory and it should be stated that it is merely a theory for neutrality and factual reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodieshady496 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. Specifically Q3. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If the theory of evolution is merely a theory then how can evolution be a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read Evolution as theory and fact. --McSly (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. Thanks for the information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Evolution has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Evolution be changed to The Theory of Evolution, as this may be taught in schools, but is still not accepted as fact. 2601:E:8280:7EE:7863:DE0:419A:FF6E (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Unsurprisingly, this has been suggested before, but consensus is very clearly against you - please see the archives - all 65 of them.
For a summary. please also see the FAQs at the top of this page - particularly No 3 - Arjayay (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the structure for the article does not allow the reader to link holistically the concepts of evolutionary theory. As an example of a better structure, I might suggest the Spanish version of the article. I would propose a new index in order to improve the organization of the article and allow for a better understanding of evolutionary theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.163.115 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the organization and clarity of this article could be improved. The Spanish version of the Evolution article does have better organization.

Translation of Evolution article (Spanish version):

1 Evolution as documented fact

1.1 Evidence of the evolutionary process

1.2 The origin of life

1.3 The evolution of life on Earth

2 Scientific theories about evolution

2.1 History of evolutionary thought

2.2 Darwinism

2.3 Neo-Darwinism

2.4 Modern evolutionary synthesis

2.5 Expansion of the modern synthesis

3 Modern evolutionary synthesis

3.1 Variability

3.1.1 Mutation

3.1.2 Genetic recombination

3.1.3 Population genetics

3.1.4 Gene Flow

3.2 Mechanisms of evolution

3.2.1 Natural Selection

3.2.2 Genetic Drift

3.3 Consequences of evolution

3.3.1 Adaptation

3.3.2 Coevolution

3.3.3 Speciation

3.3.4 Extinction

3.4 Microevolution and macroevolution

4 Expansion of the modern synthesis

4.1 Paleobiology and evolutionary rates

4.2 Environmental causes of mass extinctions

4.3 Sexual selection and altruism

4.4 Macroevolution, promising monsters and punctuated equilibrium

4.5 Synthesis of developmental biology and evolutionary theory

4.6 Microbiology and horizontal gene transfer

4.7 Endosymbiosis and origin of eukaryotic cells

4.8 Changes in the expression of genes involved in the inheritance

5 Experiments and studies on the evolutionary process

5.1 Direct observation of the evolutionary process in bacteria

5.2 Computer simulation of the process of biological evolution

6 Impacts of the theory of evolution

6.1 Evolution and religion

6.2 Other theories of evolution and scientific reviews of the synthetic theory

6.2.1 Other minority hypothesis

7 See also

8 References

9 Further reading

10 External links

Please consider the organization of the following source:

Understanding Evolution Website 2014. Understanding evolution: your one-stop source for information on evolution. Collaborative project of University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. Accessed 13-Dec-2014.

Evolution 101

1 An introduction to evolution

2 The history of life: looking at the patterns

• The family tree

• Understanding phylogenies

• Building the tree

• Homologies and analogies

• Using the tree for classification

• Adding time to the tree

• How we know what happened when

• Important events in the history of life

3 Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

• Descent with modification

• Mechanisms of change

• Genetic variation

• Mutations

• The causes of mutations

• Gene flow

• Sex and genetic shuffling

• Development

• Genetic drift

• Natural selection

• What about fitness?

• Sexual selection

• Artificial selection

• Adaptation

• Misconceptions about natural selection

• Coevolution

4 Microevolution

• Defining microevolution

• Detecting microevolutionary change

• Mechanisms of microevolution

5 Speciation

• Defining a species

• Defining speciation

• Causes of speciation

• Reproductive isolation

• Evidence for speciation

• Cospeciation

6 Macroevolution

• What is macroevolution?

• Patterns in macroevolution

7 The big issues

• The pace of evolution

• Diversity in clades

• Looking at complexity

• Trends in evolution

TheProfessor (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be said about the flaws in the theory of evolution on this page to give an unbiased view of the theory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogmyth (talk • contribs)

New sections belong at the bottom, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Those blue words are links to site policies and guidelines that back up the material I discuss. Given your other edits, it's clear that you're here to push a creationist POV and may not be here to build an unbiased encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)