Talk:Evolution

Skip to table of contents

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

Template:Vital article

view · edit

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.

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
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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.

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism 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.

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.

Template:WikiProject Genetics

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

History of Science FA‑class Top‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science 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.

Religion FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Science FA‑class High‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience 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.

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

Tree of Life FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic 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.

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.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (2015-08-15). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily.

WARNING: This is not the place to discuss any alleged controversy or opinion about evolution and its related subjects. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about evolution (not creation science, not creationism, and not intelligent design to name a few), and what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ above, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are interested in discussing or debating over evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins or elsewhere.

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 article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index

2003–2005

Historical POV forks

September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005

December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005

June 12–October 24, 2005

October 24–November 23, 2005

November 28–December 14, 2005

December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006

2006

January 2–February 6, 2006

February 6–March 23, 2006

March 3–April 5, 2006

March 31–May 4, 2006

April 20–July 7, 2006

June 24–August 25, 2006

June 27–August 26, 2006

August 18–October 2, 2006

October 1–November 16, 2006

November 6–27, 2006

November 26–December 20, 2006

December 11–23, 2006

December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007

December 20, 2006

December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007

2007

January 21–February 8

February 8–February 18

September 22–November 18

November 18–January 16, 2008

2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Update link in reference 14

The destination of reference 14

Ohtomo, Yoko; Kakegawa, Takeshi; Ishida, Akizumi; et al. (January 2014). "Evidence for biogenic graphite in early Archaean Isua metasedimentary rocks". Nature Geoscience. 7 (1): 25–28. Bibcode:2014NatGe...7...25O. doi:10.1038/ngeo2025. ISSN 1752-0894.

states at the top of the page that the current destination (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NatGe...7...25O) will be retired in October 2019, and links should be redirected to the new format. The new page is at https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NatGe...7...25O/abstract I am uncertain about the details of editing a complex reference like this, so request a knowledgeable editor do it. Gjh42 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look, the bibcode appears to be the one pointing to the old site, the DOI link still works. A related thread is here: it seems that the old site will keep being used by WP:CS1 citations until it's really necessary to change it, or until current issues with the new one are fixed. There seems to be nothing to do about the citation itself, when WP:CS1 is adapted to point bibcode links to the new site, all citations using WP:CS1 |bibcode= will automatically use the new site. I hope this helps, —Paleo Neonate – 02:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over short description?

We've been having repeated reverts on the short description, mainly involving these two versions:

1. change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations -- 90+ characters long.

2. Development of new biological species -- 38 characters long.

Version 1 accurately and precisely defines the subject. But that's not the purpose of the short description. If it were, we'd just use the whole first paragraph for any article. The reason the short description system was created is to clarify the subject subject when it's listed with several other related subjects, such as a search on a mobile device, that is, to as briefly as possible distinguish the subject, not define it. That's why the guideline for short descriptions states "no more than 40 characters". See Wikipedia_talk:Short_description#Should_a_short_description_define_or_distinguish? Version 1 is opaque, both by its length and technical verbiage, so completely fails as a helpful short description.

Version 2 is simplistic to the point of not being very accurate. But when this subject name is listed only by its title and this short description, it actually helps the user get to the article they want. If the want this article, they can then read the lede sentence and get the fully accurate (but complicated) definition.

Of course, the whole short description system is very new, and countless editors are creating short descriptions using their own criteria; the system may even soon evolve (no pun intended), but AFAIK this is where we are at the moment. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"opaque... completely fails" is hyperbolic, not a useful framing here. One problem I see with the shorter version is the "new species" bit. That is a small, somewhat fuzzy part of the process of evolution. One might call it a synecdoche (part standing for whole) but IMO it oversimplifies too much, and does not distinguish the topic from speciation. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit war, so please don't turn it into one. The fact that there have been several reverts tell us only that there is no consensus on this, and that there needs to be more constructive engagement on the discussion. WP is driven by consensus, not by character counts. Irrespective of the number of characters, the meaning must be accurate and the wording must be agreed. Plantsurfer 19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting problem. I can see a case for both versions. One is indeed shorter and looks clear, but I tend to lean in the longer direction for the simple reason that modern evolutionary theory destroyed the concept of a species, at least as a clear concept which you could build upon like a rock. Evolution is now a more clear concept than a species. Of course many people don't realize this, and find it an odd sort of thing to say. I hope this observation does not make things worse!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I will not offer a short description, but I flatly oppose #2. That is speciation. #1 is the opening sentence of this article and it has been crafted and endured the critical eye of many editors. #1 should suffice as a short description. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We might consider replacing "characteristics" with "traits", and, perhaps, drop "successive" as fairly obvious (in the short description, not in the lead, of course). I oppose #2. It is not a good definition of evolution at all. Retimuko (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - yes - agreed - #1 seems accurate, but too long; #2 is brief, but could be better; perhaps a new #3 suggestion *might* be ok? => "study of inheritable generational changes" -- 41 characters long - OR - #4 => "process of inheritable generational changes" -- 43 characters long - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think using #1 as the starting point is probably best. #2 is more of a definition of speciation. #3 could be even shorter by dropping 'study of' (otherwise closer to definition of evolutionary biology). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Descent with modifications?" It's accurate and short. My two cents. :) danielkueh (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, #5: "descent with modification" was Darwin's expression in "Origin of Species".

I would vote for that if it is followed up with an explanation that it is about populations (rather than individuals) and the modifications are to inheritance (or genetics, genotype rather than phenotype). Another possibility would be a shorter version of #1, let's call it #1a: "generational change in genetics of populations". (45 characters, close enough.) It's ugly, but surely a better writer than I could do better. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

? "genetic change in populations over time". Plantsurfer 14:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

? "change in population genetics over time" is 39 characters. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Point of information to put the "40 characters" business in context: The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary.

change of heritable traits over generations is 43 characters.
change of heritable traits over generations of populations is 58 characters.

"Descent with modification" says enough in three words for those familiar with the subject. I like it, but for newcomers it could be cryptic, so a little extra clarifying verbiage might be appropriate. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I favor Dr Bogdan's option #3: "Inheritable generational changes". Rowan Forest (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, frankly that's just word salad. It isn't generational changes that are inheritable, it is traits. Plantsurfer 15:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is for the layman, and ≤40 characters, can't be picky like that, and cant be overly scientific. How many people know what a phenotypic trait is? Rowan Forest (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, it is for the layman, @Rowan Forest:? We don't dumb down maths articles for the layperson so why would we for biology? Short description doesn't mean dumbed down, it merely means concise. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are not writing and "article" of ≤40 characters. It is a descriptor for Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritable captures what phenotypic would be saying I think and perhaps does a bit more. I can see the problem with generational change, but it is difficult. What biology really looks at are inheritable differences or variants within populations. So the generational changes are indeed only patterns and tendencies and very much to do with how humans try to summarize what they see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so "heritable change in populations over time" or "change of heritable traits in populations over time" would cover it without triggering issues about what a generation means. Plantsurfer 16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"change of heritable traits of populations over time" seems OK, but with links to Heritability and Population. On a related issue, I searched Wikis and couldn't find any reference to the famous "descent with modification", which seems a major lapse. I am going to try to repair that, in this article at an appropriate place in the discussion of Darwin, and under Darwin quotes in Wikiquote. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works nicely, but Links should not appear in a short description, at least for now. (With discussion ongoing, that may change.) Just plain Bill (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that #2 could be improved, but at least it includes something about species, which really needs to be in the short description. By far the most notable thing about evolution is the fact its flooded our world with all sorts amazingly different species, which pretty literally makes the world we live in. What could be more important than that? To state that, long the way, it causes things like making blue eyes a bit more prevalent amounts to mere side-effect in comparison. Yes, those kinds of tiny steps is how it eventually gets to new species, but the end result is stunning, while the individual steps in the process probably wouldn't be noticed. The fact that evolution leads to new species is by far the most important fact about it. (Even Darwin called it "the origin of species".) I can't see how leaving new species out of the short description can be justified.

Also, biology needs be in the short description, since people hear about all sorts of other evolutions, and they can't see our "About" template when the short description is presented to them.

So, can we come up with a short description that includes new species and biology? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "species" should necessarily be mentioned especially in a short description. This is a very fuzzy concept, and not a key to understanding evolution. Yes, Darwin mentioned it in the title of his book, but we know better now. Retimuko (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - a 45-character suggestion may be => "species adaptation to changing bioenvironments" (or related => "species adaptation to a changed bioenvironment") - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO (1) Species play only a part of the scope of evolution. Darwin's original title mentioned "species and varieties", and his editor changed the title, and even at that, it mentions "races" (another word for varieties). Anyway, we have progressed beyond Darwin. Evolution is important today because of changes within species, and also because it accounts for the tree-like structure of taxonomy, as well as a lot of other biology. It is important that we not mention species, because of the misunderstanding that is current that it is only about species.(2) Adaptatation, natural selection, etc. are not evolution. They are mechanisms of evolution. It is important that we let it be known what evolution is. (3) Evolution is the change in the hereditary traits (genotype) of populations, whatever the level of the results (whether the result is speciation or cladogenesis or just a minor variation, or even no discernable change in phenotye), whatever the mechanisms are (for example: genetic drift, sexual selection, symbiosis, artificial selection, hybridization). IMHO TomS TDotO (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be no mention of species and that it should be clear that we are talking about biology, and not e.g. stars. So I offer the following versions for consideration:

1) change in the hereditary traits (genotype) of populations (57)

2) change of heritable traits in biological populations (52)

3) change in the heritable traits of populations (45)

4) heritable change in biological populations (42) - I don't immediately see how the concept can be reduced further than this. Should it be "in" or "of"?

The word trait appears in the second paragraph of the lead without definition, and I wonder whether it should appear in the first line as follows:

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics (traits) of biological populations over successive generations." Plantsurfer 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. I could go along with 4) "heritable change of biological populations", which can be further shortened to "heritable change of populations" because all populations are biological. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - "heritable change of populations" seems good to me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm - "heritable change in populations" is ambiguous because it can be misconstrued as referring to human populations. The qualification "biological" is therefore needed. Plantsurfer 23:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantsurfer and Rowan Forest: and others - maybe "heritable change of biopopulations" (34 characters) would be better? - for support, please see => https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/biopopulations-not-biospecies-are-individuals-and-evolve/A20A52EDD50505B76CAD516AC299E0F4 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that could work Plantsurfer 09:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Biopopulations"? My Newspeak dictionary seems to have gone missing, and the OED goes from "bioplast" to "biordinal" with nothing in between. Over-cryptic brevity is no virtue here. Again, 40 characters is a suggestion, not a hard limit. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so is there consensus for "heritable change in biological populations"? Plantsurfer 11:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me... Just plain Bill (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me as well -- Drbogdan (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done - added to the main article => "{ {short description|heritable change in biological populations}} - for details => please see Talk:Evolution#Edit war over short description?" - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with "mutation bias" section

Updates

I wrote a page on Mutation bias. Please check this out if you are interested. It covers a bunch of the issues identified below, like providing examples of mutation bias and linking to the literature Dabs (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did all the things on the list below Dabs (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
below are some sections preserved from the previous text, which I think are worth saving

The Mutation bias page takes care of some of the things in my initial list of suggestions. Below is my revised list. Dabs (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific things to add or fix

refer to Mutation bias for examples
note some of the main arguments for mutation bias: effects of nucleotide mutation biases on genome composition or codon usage, e.g., GC bias or strand bias. This is the main body of literature, and the effects typically are assumed to be neutral. There is very solid empirical work on the likely effects of mutation bias on patterns of composition in bacterial genomes.
cite Bulmer (1991) for the mutation-selection-drift theory, not Lynch or Smith
relate to Developmental bias (separate article)
refer to effects of biases in the introduction of variation, in adaptive or neutral evolution, per Yampolsky and Stoltzfus
history: Sueoka (1962) and Freese (1962) were the first to invoke a mutational hypothesis to account for genome composition. Cox and Yanofsky (1967) characterized an E. coli mutant with a GC bias.
the phenotype-first theory is not relevant here. biases in phenotypic responses are not mutation biases.
the arguments about loss of function are confusing here. The pressure of recurrent mutation is a classic explanation for the loss of features but it is probably not generally the correct explanation because it occurs too slowly, although the case of Maughan, et al cited here is appropriate if atypical. This was never previously called "mutation bias." What is the bias?

some saved passages and extra passages

saved from previous version. this is good stuff, but it goes in the Developmental bias article:

Developmental or mutational biases have also been observed in morphological evolution.^[1]^[2]

saved from previous version. IMHO this is a "mutation pressure" argument not a mutation bias argument

Mutations leading to the loss of function of a gene are much more common than mutations that produce a new, fully functional gene. Most loss of function mutations are selected against. But when selection is weak, mutation bias towards loss of function can affect evolution.^[3] For example, pigments are no longer useful when animals live in the darkness of caves, and tend to be lost.^[4] This kind of loss of function can occur because of mutation bias, and/or because the function had a cost, and once the benefit of the function disappeared, natural selection leads to the loss. Loss of sporulation ability in Bacillus subtilis during laboratory evolution appears to have been caused by mutation bias, rather than natural selection against the cost of maintaining sporulation ability.^[5] When there is no selection for loss of function, the speed at which loss evolves depends more on the mutation rate than it does on the effective population size,^[6] indicating that it is driven more by mutation bias than by genetic drift. In parasitic organisms, mutation bias leads to selection pressures as seen in Ehrlichia. Mutations are biased towards antigenic variants in outer-membrane proteins.

@Dabs: Which term is preferred and most widely used? Is it "biased mutation?" "mutational bias"? Or "mutation bias"? danielkueh (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kiontke, Karin; Barrière, Antoine; Kolotuev, Irina; et al. (November 2007). "Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development". Current Biology. 17 (22): 1925–1937. Bibcode:1996CBio....6.1213A. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.061. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 18024125.
^ Braendle, Christian; Baer, Charles F.; Félix, Marie-Anne (March 12, 2010). Barsh, Gregory S. (ed.). "Bias and Evolution of the Mutationally Accessible Phenotypic Space in a Developmental System". PLOS Genetics. 6 (3): e1000877. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000877. ISSN 1553-7390. PMC 2837400. PMID 20300655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ Haldane, J.B.S. (January–February 1933). "The Part Played by Recurrent Mutation in Evolution". The American Naturalist. 67 (708): 5–19. doi:10.1086/280465. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2457127.
^ Protas, Meredith; Conrad, Melissa; Gross, Joshua B.; et al. (March 6, 2007). "Regressive Evolution in the Mexican Cave Tetra, Astyanax mexicanus". Current Biology. 17 (5): 452–454. Bibcode:1996CBio....6.1213A. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.051. ISSN 0960-9822. PMC 2570642. PMID 17306543.
^ Maughan, Heather; Masel, Joanna; Birky, C. William, Jr.; Nicholson, Wayne L. (October 2007). "The Roles of Mutation Accumulation and Selection in Loss of Sporulation in Experimental Populations of Bacillus subtilis". Genetics. 177 (2): 937–948. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.075663. ISSN 0016-6731. PMC 2034656. PMID 17720926.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Masel, Joanna; King, Oliver D.; Maughan, Heather (January 2007). "The Loss of Adaptive Plasticity during Long Periods of Environmental Stasis". The American Naturalist. 169 (1): 38–46. doi:10.1086/510212. ISSN 0003-0147. PMC 1766558. PMID 17206583.

add Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras "that animals originally came into existence in moisture, and after this one from another" link to orgin of life Afrodite aVrodiTe/maTriya/nasTroyenye/(2make3) from foam of sea quite curent view [[origin of life] . 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC) By the way why this is closed so it may be worth to look if sourced.[reply]

Not done: because you need to make your request clearer. Also, wasn't that Anaximander?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanuil (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution ≠ abiogenesis. -Rowan Forest (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Please review article content versus source content for the second reference appearing, superscript [2], linking to an NAS webpage. The citation does not support the sentence to which it is attached—the page that the link currently opens contains no definition of evolution; rather, it is a page promoting NAS activities on education in evolutionary biology. And even if elements of a definition might be patched together from fragments of meaning on the page, this is no way to create a consensus definition of this important term. As the first sentence of the lede of a very critical article in the biosciences, the definition deserves 3-4 citations from top tertiary and secondary sources, supporting a consensus meaning (or laying out variant meanings in use by experts). To have one citation and one misdirect does the article and subject no service. And while the NAS source is of some interest, it does not belong as a citation to this definition—perhaps rather, in Further reading. (From one that has taught evolutionary genetics to undergraduates at an Ivy.) Cheers. 67.167.8.141 (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "http://www.nas.edu/evolution/definitions.html" would probably be a better link. GNT316 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[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] Kiontke, Karin; Barrière, Antoine; Kolotuev, Irina; et al. (November 2007). "Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development". Current Biology. 17 (22): 1925–1937. Bibcode:1996CBio....6.1213A. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.061. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 18024125.

[20] Braendle, Christian; Baer, Charles F.; Félix, Marie-Anne (March 12, 2010). Barsh, Gregory S. (ed.). "Bias and Evolution of the Mutationally Accessible Phenotypic Space in a Developmental System". PLOS Genetics. 6 (3): e1000877. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000877. ISSN 1553-7390. PMC 2837400. PMID 20300655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[21] Haldane, J.B.S. (January–February 1933). "The Part Played by Recurrent Mutation in Evolution". The American Naturalist. 67 (708): 5–19. doi:10.1086/280465. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2457127.

[22] Protas, Meredith; Conrad, Melissa; Gross, Joshua B.; et al. (March 6, 2007). "Regressive Evolution in the Mexican Cave Tetra, Astyanax mexicanus". Current Biology. 17 (5): 452–454. Bibcode:1996CBio....6.1213A. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.051. ISSN 0960-9822. PMC 2570642. PMID 17306543.

[23] Maughan, Heather; Masel, Joanna; Birky, C. William, Jr.; Nicholson, Wayne L. (October 2007). "The Roles of Mutation Accumulation and Selection in Loss of Sporulation in Experimental Populations of Bacillus subtilis". Genetics. 177 (2): 937–948. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.075663. ISSN 0016-6731. PMC 2034656. PMID 17720926.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[24] Masel, Joanna; King, Oliver D.; Maughan, Heather (January 2007). "The Loss of Adaptive Plasticity during Long Periods of Environmental Stasis". The American Naturalist. 169 (1): 38–46. doi:10.1086/510212. ISSN 0003-0147. PMC 1766558. PMID 17206583.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]