Talk:Evolution

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions are rephrased objections to evolution that users have argued should be included in the text of Evolution. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to evolution, to be interjected into a science article like Evolution.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?

A1: This is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth.

Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Rejection of evolution by religious groups give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not.

Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID.^[1] In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.^[2]

Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Wikipedia's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones.

Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?

A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact.

Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well supported it is.

When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?

A4: Once again, this depends on how one is defining the terms proof and proven. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to an argument or demonstration showing that a proposition is completely certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to the establishment and accumulation of experimental evidence to a degree at which it lends overwhelming support to a proposition. Therefore, a proven proposition in the mathematical sense is one which is formally known to be true, while a proven proposition in the more general sense is one which is widely held to be true because the evidence strongly indicates that this is so ("beyond all reasonable doubt", in legal language).

In the first sense, the whole of evolutionary theory is not proven with absolute certainty, but there are mathematical proofs in evolutionary theory. However, nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on a finite set of facts that have been studied relative to the unproven assumptions of things stirring in the infinite complexity of the world around us. Evolutionary science pushes the threshold of discovery into the unknown. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Absolute proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence, but rather on definition.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

A5: Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales.^[3] However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies.^[4] A famous experiment was developed in 1992 that traced bacterial evolution with precision in a lab. This experiment has subsequently been used to test the accuracy and robustness of methods used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of other organisms with great success.^[5]^[6] Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas,^[7] in the Italian Wall Lizard,^[8] and in Darwin's finches.^[9]

Scientists have observed significant changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution.^[3] So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?

A6: The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different timescales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much.

A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?

A7: To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution:

There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough.
There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Furthermore, technically all fossils are transitional fossils, because no species is fixed and unchanging. For example, you can argue that Homo erectus is a transitional fossil between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis. But in the same line of thought, you can say Homo habilis is a transitional fossil between A. afarensis and Homo erectus, and so on.^[10]^[11]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium".
Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life.^[12]^[13]
Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.
Both the vertebrate eye and the bacterial flagellum are well understood to have evolved from simpler structures. Indeed, simpler eye-like structures (such as the sea squirt's ocellus) can still be found in existing species.^[14] Complex biological traits can also evolve as exaptations, where ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new functions. "Irreducible complexity" is, in any case, neither a scientific concept nor a coherent argument: A less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.^[15]^[16]
Evolution can't create new information.
New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935.^[17]^[18]

With regard to the Wikipedia Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.

Q8: How could life arise by chance?

A8: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life any more than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties—the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

See also

Past discussions

For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Evolution:

The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that evolution is controversial.

The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section.

Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

There is scientific evidence against evolution.

References

^ See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
^ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.
^ ^a ^b The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
^ Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.
^ DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.
^ Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.
^ Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.
^ Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.
^ Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.
^ Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?
^ Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
^ Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
^ Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976
^ Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67: 18 days

Evolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 4, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
February 7, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
May 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Evolutionary biology FA‑class Top‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biology FA‑class Top‑importance

	Biology portal Evolution is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Science FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Susan Kruglinski (2006-07-02). "Map: Evolution Evolving". Discover (magazine).
Michael Booth (2007-04-30). "Grading Wikipedia". Denver Post.

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "good," even if "stylistic infelicities abound."; "a fine introduction"; "source list appropriate, and well-rounded." Please examine the findings.(Note - this review prompted the drive to bring the article back to FA.)
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67: 18 days

length? + origin of life

This article is horribly long with a long list of redundant sources. Also it's understood that evolution is a theory about the progression of life and not it's origin. The current origin of life section doesn't say enough to convey that.

Critism section

I'm not a creationist. I am an atheist. And I am a believer of evolution, But still, I think we should discuss in the article how evolution has been criticized by people such as Kent Hovind. KMFDM FAN (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are strongly discouraged. Criticism, if it's pertinent, should be given throughout the article when related points are being discussed. You might be interested in objections to evolution. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article on Objections to evolution in which Hovind is cited Tmol42 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ummmm, then why isn't objections to evolution listed in the see also section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.204.248 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in the evolution template on the top, right of the article, I've added a second link in the "Social and cultural responses" section. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the criticism section, but why wasting time with people like Hovind? Coincidentally he "debated" Hugh Ross some years ago, who is actually an acomplished scientist (and has real degrees from real, prestigious institutions) and yet critical on evolution. Not to mention he's not the only one in that category! 81.96.127.72 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - whether im a 'evolutionist' or 'creationist' is not relevant. Just like any other scientific concept there should be a section on the criticisms of the fact/theory of evolution. We dont need the nut jobs like Hovind, but general problems such as the holes in the fossil record. I think it would also help to include something that evolution contradicts religious claims such as genesis etc... There is also debate within evolutionary biologists on the details, so something on that i feel would add quality to this already great article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark gg daniels (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What journal articles are you proposing as sources? I'd recommend PubMed as a good way of finding references. Here for example is a list of sources on the fossil record. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out three times above your statement, there is already an article called Objections to evolution. DKqwerty (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sense

Does this sentence make sense?
"Another advantage of duplicating a gene (or even an entire genome) is that overlapping or redundant functions in multiple genes allows alleles to be retained that would otherwise be harmful, thus increasing genetic diversity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.122.152 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not clear? It is a reference to genetic redundancy allowing a gene family to diverge into multiple new functions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the least clear. I suspect it explains nothing if you don't know what it is suppoesd to mean already, because it's still confusing for me. "Harmful" sounds like toxic at a glance, and why such things be retained... I'd remove the sentence. Narayanese (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Another advantage of duplicating a gene (or even an entire genome) is that it can increase redundancy; this allows the duplicate gene to acquire a new function while the original copy of the gene still performs its original function." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make reference of articles which suppose asexual organisms avoid Muller's ratchet by gene duplications and then mutations which generate unexpected diversity and adaptations. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tim's version is very good see e.g. this. The meaning of "harmful" is that it would be harmful if the one gene was changed, leaving no gene to fulfill the old function (in homozygotes). With a duplicate gene the old function is provided for, while at at the same time a new function can be experimented with. --Ettrig (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Tim's version; much clearer, and gets the idea of divergence of function across. Although, strictly speaking, there's three ways for a duplication to resolve - a copy is lost, a copy acquires a new function, both copies acquire new function (probably sub-functions of the original gene). I'm not sure there's a pithy edit that still conveys the utility of duplication. Graft | talk 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent free-access review! Thank you Ettrig, I shall add this immediately. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

Can we move the history section up to the beginning? Faro0485 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the article makes more sense as it is - this article is primarily about the science of evolution, explaining what it is and how it happens, and the history of evolutionary thought is dealt with in its own article. The topics are related, obviously, that's why it has a section here, but I think the order of the article as it is makes sense. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dawn Bard. The history of the idea isn't central to understanding the idea, so it makes more sense to address what it is first, and where it came from second. Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lions

"Male lions leave the pride where they are born and take over a new pride to mate" should be "Male lions leave the pride where they reach maturity and take over a new pride to mate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.187.236 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do young lions move between prides before they reach maturity? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded this a bit and added a reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superiority of men

Hi. I would like to add to your FAQ a topic that was missed in the Charles Darwin FAC. Maybe nobody else is interested but I attended the University of Minnesota where I studied the history of science as an undergraduate and nobody at the time even taught this. I propose the following text and will add it in a week or so if nobody here objects. Thanks for a lot of work you've done!

Is it true that Darwin's theory of evolution takes place in the male of the species?

Yes. In the Descent of Man, Darwin writes that males, "transmit their superiority to their male offspring".^[1] -SusanLesch (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a quaint idea. Maybe a mention in History of evolutionary thought, but that isn't anything that forms part of modern evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim Vickers. I had no idea so many people contributed to this field (this list of notable contributors to evolutionary biology seems to be all male though). So no I don't know this belongs in the FAQ anymore. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Which FAQ is that, Susan? Where is this mentioned at present? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly several contemporary women worth noting in evolutionary biology, like Rosemary Grant and Deborah Charlesworth. GoEThe (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that helps to hear two women's names, GoEThe. Tim Vickers, the FAQ is at the top of this page and linked or described at the top of the talk page on a bunch of evolution articles. It is not mentioned anywhere yet. I added it to Charles Darwin this morning but it has been removed. So I am waiting on that talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are proposing adding that question and answer to the evolution FAQ? I don't think that is a good idea, since the FAQ deals with questions that are asked frequently, whilst I have never come across anybody on this talkpage asking this question before. Perhaps you could have a look through the talkpage archives and see if this question has ever been asked in the past? It would also need a more accurate answer, since this article tries to explain the modern evolutionary synthesis, not historical accounts of evolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was, a long time ago at 18:39, 12 June. I don't think it needs to be there now though. And you added a link to sexism to the main article which helped, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I searched the fifty some archives for "women" and "male" and you're right. This question didn't ever come up before. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was also discussed at Talk:Charles Darwin#Role of women and superiority of men. I suggest any follow ups should be on the Darwin talk page because the matter is fully explored there, and the misunderstanding about the Darwin quote is explained. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnuniq. I will try to talk in one place but perhaps not there. Wikipedia's article on sexual selection has one sentence in a section titled "Criticism", "Cultural critics have noted that Darwin's ideas about sexual selection were strongly shaped by Victorian mores and at times reflect a distinct chauvinistic bias."<ref>For example, see Ruth Hubbard, “Have Only Men Evolved?” in The Politics of Women’s Biology (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990), pp. 87-106.</ref> Whoever wrote that must be a rare editor. I followed its citation to Amazon who left the book open long enough to quote a few lines.

“

It's just as hard for man to break the habit of thinking of himself as central to the species as it was to break the habit of thinking of himself as central to the universe.--Elaine Morgan (1973, pp. 3--4) quoted in Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 95.

”

“

The ethnocentric bias of Darwinism has been widely acknowledged, but its blatant sexism--or, more correctly, anthrocentrism (male-centeredness)--although noted by a few nineteeth century feminists, went largely unexplored until the 1970s, when feminist scientists and historians became interested in Darwin. Within Darwin's lifetime, feminists such as Antoinette Brown Blackwell and Eliza Burt Gamble called attention to the obvious male bias pervading his arguments.^[2]

”

“

The Victorian picture of the active male and the passive female becomes even more explicit later in the same paragraph. "The males of certain hymenopterous insects [bees, wasps, ants] have been frequently seen by that imitable observer, M. Fabre, fighting for a particular female who sits by, an apparently unconcerned beholder of the struggle, and then retires with the conqueror.--Hubbard quoting Darwin, 1990, p. 94 or so

”

“

Make no mistake, wherever you look among animals, eagerly promiscuous males are pursuing females, who peer from behind languidly drooping eyelids to discern the strongest and handsomest. Does it not sound like the wish-fulfillment dream of a proper Victorian gentleman? --Hubbard

”

In any case, the suggestion above is not a FAQ only because nobody ever asked it. But I don't think it is a misunderstanding (and like I said this work all happened since I graduated). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a probably a bit rude to do it this way, but I feel obliged to point out that the "F" in FAQ stands for FREQUENTLY. If no one has ever asked the question, then we may conclusively assume that it is NOT a Frequently Asked Question. Thanks, 67.173.185.224 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PNAS colloquium

n the Light of Evolution III: Two Centuries of Darwin

A wealth of excellent new free-access sources! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Darwin, Descent of Man p. 291
^ Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 93.

[1] See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.

[2] As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

[OriginOfWhales-3] The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

[4] Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.

[Hillis92-5] DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.

[Crandall94-6] Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.

[7] Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.

[8] Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.

[9] Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.

[10] Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.

[11] Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?

[crutch-12] Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.

[13] Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[14] Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976

[15] Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.

[16] Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.

[17] Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.

[18] "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

[19] Darwin, Descent of Man p. 291

[20] Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 93.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[1]

[2]