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.

Possibly

when you write this material do not and i repeat do not use the words of certain confirmation, ie. "is" and "are" when you speek about this ie. evolution "is" what occured. it has the possibility to take away from ones religion because the text is not certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.9.68 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as how evolution is a fact of life - as observable as gravity even - we're gonna go ahead and keep using "is" and "are". If it contradicts your interpretation of your holy book, that's your problem, not ours. It doesn't contradict my interpretation of my holy book, and I'd bet money that we use the same one.Farsight001 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, seeing as how evolution is a fact of life - as observable as gravity even - we're gonna go ahead and keep using "is" and "are"."

Regarding that... you mean to say micro evolution is a fact of life, to which I won't argue against, but the theory of "bacteria to human" evolution is not an obvious fact. Rather that is speculation. COMDER (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See evolution as theory and fact, and WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micro vs. macro evolution is really an artificial distinction. The only difference between the two is time scale. Mkemper331 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a fact is "obvious" or not, doesn't change its being a fact. It wasn't always "obvious" that the earth orbits the sun, but it does (and did). Quietmarc (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reality doesn't change to match your religion. There's probably a direct correlation between the age of your religion and the number of things it claims that are false. If that impacts your faith negatively, you may want to consider alternatives. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, reality doesn't change to match your religion."

Yours neither. If there isn't proof of something, it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia as fact. It should be presented, yes, but as either a theory, myth, religion, or something like that that isn't said to be fact. And I was watching the a special on the imagination... I mean history... channel on the 10 biggest "booms" in the history of the universe (by the way, only 4 of the 10 were actually documented, observed, history. Shouldn't everything on the history be actual history? Not just what somebody wants to think happened?) and they said nothing could move faster than the speed of light. Then when they got to #1 biggest boom they said the entire universe, about 200 million lightyears, exploded into existence in nanoseconds. I like how you assume you can assume reality simply changed to match your religion (I reference your quote). 209.173.122.191 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Random" edits

These edits overstated "randomness" in the origin of variations, and introduced the old red herring of "evolution is a theory" when dealing with the fact rather than the theories explaining the fact. So, I've restored the earlier and in my opinion better lead statement. If Comber thinks more needs to be said about the randomness or otherwise of genetic variation, a good source is needed and this is something that should be explained in the body of the article before hacking about the lead. . dave souza, talk 20:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very hard to say if evolution is random or not, some evolutionary changes will be random, such as those produced by genetic drift, but adaptations produced through selection are certainly not random and neither is speciation. Equally, evolution can happen quite quickly in a rapidly-reproducing population (such as yeast for instance), so it is wrong to say it requires "massive amounts of time". Overall, this edit introduced several serious inaccuracies. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both responses... sorry for reverting the second time without discussing, but wikipedia said that reverting wasn't vandalism, so I just did it, but I did refine my edit to improve paragraph flow. Anyhow, I'll respond regarding other things like next week or so... i have an exam & modern physics to study for. COMDER (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of evolution that is neither slow nor random: a culture of mammary epithelial cells tranformed to express TERT and a gain-of-function version of ras will after a while (like weeks) have any type of mutation that raises the expression level of c-myc [1] Narayanese (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this more, I suppose if you were being very picky you could argue that the genetic changes in a population due to genetic drift are not really random, since only those that are not removed by natural selection will be represented. Perhaps that argument is a bit close to semantics though. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while not wanting to push this discussion further in the direction of semantics ... I think the core issue is some fundamental way in which scientists think in probabalistic terms. This is something that many non-scientists have trouble understanding. My sense is that "randomness" whether the word is appropriate or not just misses the point - from a scientific point of view. For non-scientists if may just be the easiest way for them to understand that it is non-teleological or non-deterministic or something. Or perhaps some textbooks use the word "random" as a shorthand way that excuses them from the more time consuming and challenging chore of explaining to undergraduates what it means to think probabalistically, what "sampling error" means, and so on. My point is that the concept of drift itself rests on a whole set of assumptions and proofs that are basic to statistics and that someone studying statistics will learn. Someone not studying statistics will often give up on trying to understand and just memorize the formula or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really began with the common creationist claim that evolution is "undirected", meaning lacking the teleology of divine intervention. Wilkins covers it pretty well, noting that "This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it reappears in a number of influential works on evolution. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. Monod's use of the phrase "realm of pure chance" is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst...... changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes... So far as the local environment is concerned, the change is the result of a random process, a black box that isn't driven with reference to things going on at the level of the environment. It's not really random, of course, because it is the result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is concerned, it may as well be." . . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Random Genetic Drift for Larry Moran promoting that aspect: the same principle applies, that it's random in a narrow sense. . dave souza, talk 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another ref: Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks, Padian and Matzke, Biochem. J. (2009) 417, 29–42 doi:10.1042/bj20081534 p. 42 – "A deﬁnition of evolution as ‘random mutation and natural selection’ is popular among ID advocates and other creationists..... Mutation is not ‘random’ in any causal sense.... The causes and processes of evolution are not random in any important sense." . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Grant thirty years study of evolution in Darwin's finches emphasized the predictable and unpredictable features of evolution. But several articles have noted somewhat predictable evolution in wildsuflowers, bacteria, stickleback fish, and fruit flies when separate population of each similarly solved an environmental challenge with the same derived trait. In other words similar mutation or recombinant events arose to solve a challenge and natural selection expanded the populations in a similar fashion. I remember a Science article discussing the limited Darwinian mutational options in a bacterial enzyme (lactamase I think). Out of hundreds of mutational possiblities only a few were feasible. So it isn't random nor is it completely predictable either. That's as ambiguous as I can be. hee,hee. I should also note that mutations and recombinations occur in hot spots within genomes and some areas are more prone to change. Much like variable regions of immunoglobins and T cell receptors are hypervariable. Still natural selection has also been demonstrated to over ride genetic drift and "random" changes. GetAgrippa (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

theory

should it not be noted somewhere that this is only a theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.245.157 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see evolution as theory and fact. Mkemper331 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a theory. It's also a fact. The word theory means something more in science than its common language usage. The Theory of Evolution is presently stronger than the theory of gravity, because we have not yet found the mechanism for gravitation but we have found the mechanisms for mutation, selection, and inheritance. 76.185.61.24 (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I made sure to edit the gravity wiki to reflect the fact that gravity as well, is also a theory. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.0.39 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those FAQs are amazingly one-sided. 24.23.7.103 (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "sides" here. this is not an opinion piece. The faqs answer Frequently Asked Questions, and they do so quite correctly and accurately and with ample citation. Being that they abide by the guidlines of wikipedia just fine, exactly what makes them one-sided?Farsight001 (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request for additional heading under mechanisms

3. Mechanisms 3.3 Self-developing genome

Self-developing genome

The theory of the self-developing genome is a systems-based solution to the problem of explaining the source of variety which acts as the raw material for natural selection. There is a three-fold requirement for any natural evolutionary process, namely, reproduction, variety and competition. According to the theory of the self-developing genome any natural system satisfying these requirements will evolve a mechanism of evolvability. The copying error, which is a cornerstone of neo-Darwinian theory, will evolve into a system of variety generation and variety maintenance at the level of the heritable sub-unit. The critical objection to this idea, emanating from the strict adherence to the principle of selfish survival, is overcome by recognising that many traits of life such as sexual reproduction (or gene exchange), cell structure, multi-cellularity and the genetic code itself are universal characteristics and are not subject to the same environmental scrutiny as more manifest physical characteristics.

Underpinning the inevitable evolution of evolvability is the fact that the environment of every heritable unit (which is composed of all other heritable units) is never stable and this, coupled with the restrictions placed on design possibility by the limitations of physical and chemical possibility and the limitations of the DNA code, enable the system to ‘learn’ in an algorithmic sense something about this varying environment. Increasing complexity, whilst by no means necessary, can naturally evolve from this system due to the fact that heritable sub-units are linked together in a cooperating whole to form the genome. Increasing complexity can then emerge from the twin phenomena of variety-maintenance and cooperation which together can create genomes with novel combinations of sub-units. These unique combinations of sub-units can lead to the emergence of organisms of novel design which might find a suitable, available, vacant niche to which they are pre-adapted.

source: www.evolutionarytheory.co.uk

Jonnoknox (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC) DEREKHOUGH@AOL.COM[reply]

Hi there, can you please provide some peer-reviewed scientific papers, preferably reviews, which discuss this hypothesis? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he can. Obviously cannot "evolve" a mechanism of evolvability, just like you can't haul yourself up by your own bootstraps. Graft | talk 01:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

I changed the opening sentence to

Evolution is is a scientific theory in biology which states that small changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.^[1]

However, it was reverted without any reason being given. I think that my verstion is better because it describes that evolution is, in fact, a scientific theory, something which the old version of the article did not. ----J4\/4 <talk> 16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evolution" is primarily the name of the observable phenomenon. It is also used as an abbreviation for "theory of evolution", but that's hardly the primary meaning. Therefore the original version was more precise. If you want to rename this article to Theory of evolution you need to get a consensus for that first. Hans Adler 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, evolution is the observation, the modern evolutionary synthesis is the theory that explains this observation. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is currently "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next" which is extraordinarily broad. I come to this talkpage because the sentence has been cited on an internet forum in order to justify the position that evolved can be used for any change at all, for example, "the boy evolved blue eyes from his brown eyed parents" or "the microsattellite evolved from 14 repeats to 16 repeats". While I understand that modern biologists assumes no direction in evolution, I put it to wikipedians that the pure Darwinian meaning of the word is not yet the only one in use, even for biologists writing about biology. Please ask yourself if the following mean the same thing:-

The partially evolved gill-like structures
The partially changed gill-like structures.

Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? No one questions that the word "evolution" has many meanings (you do not need an enecylopedia for this, go to a dictionary, this is one of the jobs of dictionairies) and I think we have a history of evolution section or article that discusses the changing (evolving!) meanings of the word. This article provides the mainstream view, and the introduction starts with the mainstream view. If anyone thinks that just quoting the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is the way to win an argument on some chat-room or list-serve, well, they probably deserve to be expending their mental energies at a chat room. If you want to understand evolution, stop arguing over the meaning of the first sentence and read the article as a whole. Then read the lniked articles. Then start reading the books and journal articles cited. That is the way to learn, not by endlessly turning the first sentence over and over. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with specialized meanings or specialized articles, but the first sentence is written as if it is intended to be a definition of the word as such?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For better or worse, it is a Wikipedia convention to begin almost all articles with (title of article) is (predicate). And unfortunately this often gets read as a definition. I think this is understandable, but unfortunate and often a bad idea but th bad idea is on the part of a reader. When I go to an encyclopedia, I assume that there is an article - one paragraph, one page, or twenty pages - because that is how long it takes to explain the subject to me. I wish all people had this approach to encyclopedias, but sadly I am not the dictator of the world. But my advice to people (I am of course not speaking to you personally, Andrew) looking for definitions is to go to dictionaries. I am not sure what to do except create a template saying "AND THAT'S NOT ALL! IF YOU KEEP READING TO THE SECOND SENTENCE YOU WILL LEARN EVEN MORE ABOUT THIS EXCITING TOPIC" that we could insert after the first sentence of every article.... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Mendel

I think this article should include Gregor Mandel's work on inheritance. I believe inheritance and adaptation go hand in hand and the lack of emphasis on Mendelian inheritance skews the article towards adaptation. Sumanch (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned in the Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought section, but he's more relevant to genetics than directly important in evolutionary thought. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable if he accepted evolution at all, he seemed to be more interested in Linnean hybridisation. The historical section looks ok in that regard, but having noticed it I've changed "Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists were very critical of the theory of evolution" to "Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists rejected gradual natural selection". For one thing there was no such thing at the time as "the theory of evolution", in the eclipse of Darwinism there were numerous competing theories of evolution, one of which was the mutationism of de Vries. I don't have Quammen to hand, but Peter J. Bowler's Evolution, The History of an Idea pp. 268–269 notes that de Vries thought that new species originated by sudden mutations or bursts of mutation, not the gradual accumulation of variations in Darwin's natural selection, but de Vries still saw natural selection as important in weeding out the unsuccessful new species amongst those formed by sudden mutations. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what Mendel thought about evolution, his work on inheritance was key to developing the theory. thx1138 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot resolve this unless we first have unanimity on what we mean by "the theory," which I do not think likely. If by "the theory" we mean Darwin's theory of speciation, no, Mendel was not key to developing the theory. If by "the theory" we mean the modern synthesis, yes, Mendel was key. So .... ? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery of genetics was one key to the modern synthesis, reintegrating natural selection with Darwin's other crucial points about evolution occurring through common descent. Mended's work was rediscovered after the same research was independently carried out by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns. Though Mendel was rightly given precedence, it's a least questionable as to whether the others had to read his laws before understanding the significance of their work. . . dave souza, talk 14:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and SLrubenstein's points are right on. Darwin had no idea of what the means of inheritance was-in fact he wrongly thought gemmules, however that ignorance in no way impedes his theory of natural selection (and it's correctness). Mendel's work was essential for the Modern Theory and the evolution of Population Genetics. GetAgrippa (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ri> And, since both Darwin and Mendel are mentioned in two places, in the lead and in the History of evolutionary thought section, what's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's re-read the initial comment for the real point (valid or not): this article emphasizes adaptation, without giving due weight to other elements of the theory such as inheritance (and I would add variation). I am not sure how to respond: I think inheritance and variation are as important as "adaptation" (although I prefer the word selection). But is this article giving them short shrift - I mean, in relation to adaptation or fitness? This is a judgment call and it is hard for me to say. Can anyone see any places where something would be gained by saying a bit more about the importance of individual variation among members of a population, and the fact that traits that are selected for are inherited? I think this is the real issue being raised (i.e. I think continuted discussion of Mendel is actually a diversion from the key point). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first section covers inheritance. Perhaps it's a bit lacking in not spelling out the unitary nature of heritability with recessive and dominant genes, which was Mendel's contribution in contrast to ideas of blending inheritance. Seems to be well covered in Introduction to genetics#Genes and inheritance, a brief statement on the issue could be helpful. . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with you, perhaps Sumanch can explain where specifically there is a problem. But it seems like most of us agree that the article handles this issue in a deliberate and thoughtful, well-informed way. Good enough for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel is probably underemphasized. I recommend everyone read the preface and first chapter of R.A. Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" here. I'll quote the first paragraph of chapter I:

That Charles Darwin accepted the fusion or blending theory of inheritance, just as all men accept many of the undisputed beliefs of their time, is universally admitted. That his acceptance of this theory had an important influence on his views respecting variation, and consequently on the views developed by himself and others on the possible causes of organic evolution, was not, I think, apparent to himself, nor is it sufficiently appreciated in our own times.

The kind of rigorous work that Fisher did in establishing population genetics and turning evolution into a sharp mathematical science was impossible without the foundation provided by Mendel; it's easy to forget this with the benefit of hindsight - we take genetics for granted now, but this was a major debate in the first part of the twentieth century, and its introduction was key to the modern understanding of evolution. I think this article in general errs, contra to the first sentence of Fisher's preface: "Natural Selection is not Evolution." Graft | talk 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Gould 2002

[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] Gould 2002

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[1]