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.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Article policies

Evolution has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class.

The categories listed below refer to WikiProjects which have expressed an interest in this article.

edit

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

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 Creation–evolution controversy 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] A new species of mosquito has even evolved in the London Underground system since it opened.^[10]

Scientists have observed large 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.^[11]^[12]
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.^[13]^[14]
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.^[15] 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.^[16]^[17]
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.^[18]^[19]

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.

Introduction[edit]

This introduction needs an own table of contents - but seriously: please make it shorter, especially for the mobile page it is really confusing. --94.254.226.36 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Over history there has been a cycle of efforts to re-focus it and indeed it may now be trying to do too much. Playing Devil's Advocate, whole paragraphs could be removed (and if necessary moved to the body). Paragraphs 3-6 are expendable if shortening is considered a high priority. On the other hand, I can see why the introduction has become a special extended discussion, and I'm not sure it is such a bad thing. So which bits are most confusing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the IP will be back (but you never know). You are right, I think, about paras 3-6, which are tangential to an immediate understanding of evolution; and para 7 is pretentiously padded out ("In terms of", "an understanding has been instrumental", "numerous fields", "significan impact", "not just .. but also", "involves the application of Darwinian principles") and should be cut down drastically, or removed. Leads are meant to be 3 or 4 paragraphs. Perhaps it's time for the axeman to strike. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone has the energy this is at least one article where good feedback is quickly available to change proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Or did we just make a proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We've just about agreed to cut it down a bit, perchance ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Chop it drastically and without mercy. An “overview” section atop the body might be a place to park the vital pieces that don’t quite fit in the short summary intro. If I find time and energy I will look it over and make a start, unless someone else gets there first. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So a big cut has been made by Chiswick. I think much of it is honestly self-evidently unnecessary in an intro. For the sake of good practice and potential discussion I'll name a few removed sentences which could maybe be recovered somehow, if anyone thinks necessary:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The four most widely recognised evolutionary processes are natural selection (including sexual selection), genetic drift, mutation and gene migration due to genetic admixture.
In the early 20th century the modern evolutionary synthesis integrated classical genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology.

┌─────────────────────────┘Two or three editors having a quiet discussion on the talk page is not sufficient consensus to make wholesale changes to a feature article. At the very least you should be starting an RFC for this level of change. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We aren't making wholesale changes, we're trimming the lead to comply with the MOS and to focus on the topic of the article rather than ramble about tangentially related issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

BRD but I can't see anything controversial requiring an RFC either: The intro is clearly a bit overloaded, but shortening a lead is not the same as massive deletion because leads should reflect the body--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree we have consensus on careful trimming (even a whole lot of trimming), but not hacking. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So how to do this unless there are comments explaining precise concerns--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Starting stating precise concerns would be great if anyone has them, but just some general suggestions would still help. Or just boldly make some focused reduction that can be simply justified in edit summary, and see what follows per BRD. In effect, that's just what happened -- a bold removal of several paragraphs, a revert, and this discussion. This is all typical WP methods; I don't think we require anything unique here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Nick Thorne, I would say that speciation is a widely recognized and important factor in evolution as well. It definitely needs a brief mention in the intro.Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. Suggest we just proceed in small steps, each one commented to explain its specific improvement. The principle is extremely simple - the lead should summarise the article's contents, and nothing else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Small steps certainly, but each issue raised and discussed here and consensus sought before actual changes made to article. Remember, this is a featured article and there is no deadline, lets take the time to do this right. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A better version of the lead[edit]

Nick Thorne: What you may not have noticed is that the lead section has sprawled very considerably since the article was promoted to featured status. The promoted lead was both shorter and more focused than the current version, so we could consider reverting to what FAC considered worthy, or something very close to it. Here it is: Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become rarer. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of the traits to the next generation.^[1]^[2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and the natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.^[3] In contrast with this, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift arises from the element of chance involved in which individuals succeed in reproducing.
A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the favoring of different traits by different environments result in the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of these populations as new species.^[4] The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a single ancestral species through this process of gradual divergence.^[1]
The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the origin of species.^[5] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,^[3] in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.^[6]

References

^ ^a ^b Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
^ Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210&ndash, 26}. doi:10.2307/2408842.
^ ^a ^b "Mechanisms: the processes of evolution". Understanding Evolution. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2006-07-14.
^ Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.
^ Darwin, Charles (1860). On the Origin of Species (2nd ed.). London: John Murray. pp. p. 490.CS1 maint: Extra text (link)
^ "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
*"Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-25.

FWIW - this new lead version seems excellent imo - and better than the current one - which seems too long and less clear. Drbogdan (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, I much prefer the current lead. Sure, it is a long and complex lead, more so than is customary for a Wikipedia article, but this is a large, important and complex subject. We do not do our readers a service by dumbing down the lead. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The original lead has several merits, including 1) being the right length and number of paragraphs 2) having been fully reviewed 3) actually summarizing the article 4) not wandering off the subject of evolution itself onto side issues. "Long and complex" would be splendid if it matched the subject, but it doesn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Chiswick. But I have to admit I can't understand Nick's explanation. Complex subjects deserve careful writing if possible, not complex writing? Complexity of style, and long length, are basically never something aimed at for their own sake?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC) To be more specific, trying to make discussion practical, could I suggest critics of the original version give details about which specific things need to be more complex or long?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I remain implacably opposed to this broad brush approach to revision of the article lead. As stated earlier, it is my contention that revision should be done in small steps and fully discussed before being implemented at each step. I remain completely suspicious of attempts to sweep away the current lead for some other version that omits a great deal of relevant information. If you think some aspect of the current lead is not required, please elucidate that point and we can have a discussion about it. As I said before, there is no deadline here, we can and should take our time to get this right. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read what has already been said, and keep the rhetoric under control please. I have been plain and clear on what's wrong and why the other version is better, see my comments above. At risk of repetition, para 5 "Consequences of selection" is about natural selection and more specialised topics, with some waffle about what scientists continue to do; para 6 "All life on earth" is about the Last universal common ancestor, not evolution at all; para 7 "In terms of practical application" isn't about much at all once the pompous phrasing (all that "significant impact" and "instrumental to developments" - we shouldn't be writing like that) is discounted: at most, applications might get one sentence in the lead. There is no prohibition against changes of any size when articles have gone astray, as the lead of this article certainly has. Let us await the views of other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually like that new version, but I still think it falls short. It misses the history of life on earth and the fossil record that is inextricably linked to evolution and it doesn’t give a great coverage of the history (a bit too brief, considering the depth the article section has). As for the current lead, it definitely yammers on a bit much. I do want to remind everyone that there is an introduction to evolution article that is more concise, so it might actually be okay to have a larger, more complex lead in this article. Though, it should not contain any fluff—notably paragraph 6, which to be honest, is the worst part. It gives information that isn’t even discussed in the article. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 00:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User: Azcolvin429.... we should look back on RfC about the lead. Things like "More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct" were added after many participants in an RfC though it was prudent.--Moxy (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

From a purely editorial point of view (I'm not a biologist), I would say there's an awful lot of detail in the lead which simply doesn't need to be there. It just doesn't need examples, detailed caveats, discussions of which estimate is right. So the penultimate para could easily be reduced to just first clause - none of the other details matter in the slightest for an intro.

Likewise the second, para: who cares at this point in the article exactly which fossils were found in which rock strata, it's just the date that matters. The 2nd para should read:

"The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years. The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago, More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[13] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million." --Pfold (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that almost all the examples given in the lead aren't necessary—most especially those that are citing primary research. The statement about biogenic graphite, for example, does not belong. The LUCA part should go. Most of para 6 should go. Also, in an effort to not mass delete, maybe the details and examples can be incorporated into the body. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The second last paragraph which you are discussing is indeed basically irrelevant to the lead of this article. The old lead above has one sentence (last sentence of the second last paragraph. However, it is currently perhaps the biggest paragraph. Surely even in the body of the article this would be information mainly for another article, so can we for example switch back to a single sentence on that particular point? Personally I think it just encourages the public misunderstanding about "evolution" being a theory about the beginnings of life, which it is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

in the shorter, revised version, there should be at least a sentence or two summarizing the Applications and Social and cultural responses sections User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Something like, "Evolution has been the subject of various cultural phenomenon with differing social implications. Evolution finds overwhelming support amongst scientists[ref]; however, it has not been widely accepted by the general public.[ref]" I personally would limit the discussion to a general explanation, avoiding terms like creationism, intelligent design, eugenics, Lamarckism, etc. as they give undue weight and really have nothing to do with the science of evolution. Further, the section is small and is abundant with links to guide readers to the appropriate articles relating to the controversy. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess this is only a conversation starter but I'll give a direct opinion. I find the first sentence very vague, arguably meaningless (because it could describe almost anything), and the second one gives a misleading impression about "the general public". You mean in America I guess? But even there you have the "sure microevolution exists" argument being very popular.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It was only a conversation starter. I agree it is vague. I am simply brainstorming the best way to include the social-cultural aspect without giving too much detail and excluding anything about creationism. And yes, that would focus mostly on the American public. Though globally, we don't have the data. Somehow a statement needs to indicate that general perceptions of evolution do not equate with the scientific perceptions, as numerous studies have shown. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 04:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we should make the article focus on the American public and its problems with Darwin, which are connected to America's cultural/political polarization generally, and hard to even understand outside of that context. FWIW there are already dozens, maybe hundreds of WP articles which are focused on subjects connected to evolution and those culture wars. But this article at least, surely, may focus unashamedly on the non-political subject evolution and not American cultural conflicts? If we put that aspect aside and focus on your first sentence, there was for example a sentence closing the short old version posted above. Does that not achieve a similar aim?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If the article length increased since it achieved FA status, wouldn't you expect the lead to expand as well? MOS says 4 paragraphs, but it's "not an absolute rule" (especially if it affects FA status). As long as it accurately describes the whole article, the length of the lead doesn't matter. Look at other FA articles like DNA, Virus, Bacteria and Metabolism 2601:405:4300:DB28:D529:3EA8:C597:4FF6 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Length is clearly not the main concern, but focus. And indeed "accretion" is simply a common problem on WP leads, whereby lots of little additions are made over time by editors who think of things they find interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. danielkueh (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Really need to trim report spam in the lead..looks and reads horible and is sourced badly for a lead. When was this grade school stuff added sourced to news papers ?--Moxy (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161112121623/http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2016/info/ac to http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2016/info/ac

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Evolution =/= theory of evolution[edit]

(Biological) Evolution itself and the theory of evolution are different things. These two titles should not be redirected to each other. Ruhubelent (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See Evolutionary biology and Evolution as fact and theory.--Moxy (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy:, Saw and read both. That is why it took me long time to reply. I have not detected anything suggesting the two are not different and seperate things. Can you cite if there is any? --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

They are exactly the same thing. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Azcolvin429:, can you share reasons to conclude the two are the same thing? Machine and Machine theory are two different things, so are the evolution and theory of evolution. Evolution is the process, theory of evolution is an explanation and review of that process. Am I wrong? --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I can see the distinction that the theory of gravity is distinct from a bowl of petunias plummeting through the atmosphere, but from the practical standpoint of writing an encyclopedia we cannot truly describe the Thing-in-itself but only science's perception of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

How wrong you are! We observed gravity as a phenomenon, then Newton gave us a theory, then Einstein gave us a better theory, and I think there is more to come. Most phenomena lead to multiple developing and competing theories (or Hypotheses to be exact). Lindosland (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

...Did you actually read my post beyond looking for something to argue about? I'm having trouble believing you did even that much. I pointed out the distinction between phenomenon and Noumenon as you did, but noted that all we can share with others is phenomenon. This is one of the few things that empiricists and Kantian idealists can agree on. Even if we were to try to describe gravity-in-itself or evolution-in-itself, we would only be sharing our own original hypotheses about them. Since we don't do that, all we can do is share the academic consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are here to describe evolution 'in itself'. That is a philosophical distinction about which I see your point; but I think the page should describe 'the subject' of evolution in a way that makes clear the fact that this is a subject of intense ongoing discussion, research, and disagreement (I could back that I think with citations from 'Nature'. It might then state that 'until recently, except for periods when it fel out of favour, mainstream opinion supported the 'neo-Darwinian' theory (see Neo-Darwinism and 'The Modern Synthesis' ', leaving the details to those specialist pages. It could then state that 'many experts now cast doubt on the Neo-Darwinian theory, especially since the human genome project and the ENCODE project which raised many problems and opened up whole new areas of thinking regarding the functioning of the genome, especially in relation to gene expression, mutation mechanisms and mounting evidence for the very real possibility of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Then it would emphasise the importance of discussions regarding whether random mutations can ever be creative rather than destructive, leading to the realisation that if mutations are not entirely random (and they almost certainly are not), then natural selection is only a filter, and not the driving force behind evolution (much has been written on this point by many well-known figures). That's it: leave all the fine details for the specialist pages. I seriously think that there is no longer an 'academic consensus' - it has always been doubtful, and the arguments have raged on, but since 2001 I think it has lost a lot of support, and we should be honest about this. Lindosland (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that they are different things, and have made the point here long ago, along with others, only to be rejected. Evolution is the phenomenon, which was postulated to exist by many people, as per the history section, throughout the ages, though they had no theory for it. Herbert Spencer for example had an all-encompassing view of evolution which he wrote in his essay 'The Development Hypothesis' in 1952 - BEFORE Darwin's publication - and yet he used the word evolution! How could he do that if evolution is Darwinian evolution?! There is no such thing as THE theory of evolution. To launch into what is in fact Neo Darwinian theory as per the Modern Synthesis, as if it were fact, without even naming it properly as one theory, is quite wrong. Current thinking among experts, (and I consider myself an expert in the field), is that the Modern Synthesis is wrong. Even Nature has published an editorial saying that, and talk of genes and gene pool changes is being superceded by the complexities of gene expression, promoter regions, enhancers, small RNAs, epigenetics, and much more! THE theory of evolution, as launched into here, is as good as dead, and should be consigned to the 'Modern Synthesis' page as a bit of history. This page should list the many theories, from Lamarck to Hoyle's pangenesis, to Darwin's ACTUAL hypothesis (his word he insisted - he didn't have a 'theory') of pangenesis, gemmules and inheritance of change as per Lamarck. Lindosland (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The diverse hypotheses for evolution did eventually coalesce into the theory mostly agreed upon by mainstream academia after experimental verification from multiple parties. This theory undergoes continual refinement, but to act like there isn't "the" theory for either because of this is to miss the point of theories entirely. If you want to split hairs and focus on different hypotheses that lead to the theory, that would be History of evolutionary thought.

You're no more a biologist than anyone else here. Your self-proclaimed expertise (even if it was legitimate) is irrelevant, noone here cares about it, we will ignore it. Unless and until tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic describe Modern Synthesis as "good as dead," you are advocating a WP:FRINGE position, to which discretionary sanctions do apply. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Harsh! I didn't say I'm a biologist I said 'I consider myself ....' simply to indicate that I am no casual commentator (and I am not), knowing from long experience that this is a 'difficult' page. I came here to lend support to another editor's statement, not to justify an edit. I wouldn't dare edit this page without a lot of conversation first - I've been editing for 16 years and I do not think that I have to back up everything I say in discussion with citations, nor do I think it is for you to tell me unequivocally on the talk page that my position is FRINGE, or Pseudoscience! We surely do that in relation to proposed or actual edits! If I were proposing edits I would find the relevant Nature editorial; I would back my claims with quotes from the ENCODE project, or from the many commentaries on its conclusions and how they change everything. If I were editing 'Modern Synthesis'I would quote books questioning the Modern Synthesis in detail; I would look up quotes from the scientists who are alleged to have reached 'consensus' over Huxley's 'Modern Synthesis' - several admitted to not understanding Fisher's paper, on which so much was claimed to rest, but looking up all this stuff is hard work, and I would only do it if I were trying to get edits accepted. I might also quote here articles about Wikipedia, and the very real problems it faces despite it's huge success, especially concerning 'ownership' of certain pages by self-appointed guardians of what they are sure is the mainstream position. I believe even Jimmy Wales has admitted to real problems, and I seem to remember discussions about schemes to overcome this problem. This page, we all know, is one of the biggest and hardest topics to assess, and many many papers and books have been published since 2001 and the genome breakthroughs that cast doubt on the outdated 'textbook' material that this page tends to support. This page I think is one such 'heavily guarded' page, but I'm not here to attack anyone, or prove it or argue, just, as I said, to add my support to an alternative opinion in the hope that others might feel less intimidated. Lindosland (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"I've been editing for 16 years and I do not think that I have to back up everything I say in discussion with citations" – see WP:NOTAFORUM and produce well sourced and clear proposals for article improvement instead of woofling. . dave souza, talk 23:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm with dave souza here. Lindosland appears to be saying that this is hard to write about because the science keeps changing. No. That's what science is about. We write the best we cannot based on recent, high quality, reliable sources. I don't see the problem. (Unless it's that noisy minority of people from one western country who still want to deny ALL the science.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. There's also WP:BURDEN. If you're going to make a claim that's not in the article, with the ultimate goal of even something like that claim someday being in the article, it needs to be supported by a source. Chatty armchair speculation does not shift the standards for reliability in sources, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been editing for 16 years and I do not think that I have to back up everything I say in discussion with citations - How long ago you registered your account doesn't grant privileges. If we were going to measure an editor's weight by their activity, you have less than a tenth the number of the edits that either Dave, HiLo47, or I have; and a much smaller fraction of your edits involves engaging the community. Indeed, each of us has a larger number of edits engaging the community than you have of edits of any type. That's probably why you are not aware of the various policies that everyone's pointed out for you.

We surely do that in relation to proposed or actual edits! - If you were not proposing edits, then there was no need for you to post. The only reason the rest of us are commenting is so that your approach to the site can improve.

If I were proposing edits I would find the relevant Nature editorial; - That editorial would likely be a secondary source, not a tertiary source that demonstrates mainstream academic consensus.

I would back my claims with quotes from the ENCODE project - That would be a primary source, which is utterly useless for demonstrating mainstream academic consensus.

I might also quote here articles about Wikipedia, and the very real problems it faces despite it's huge success, especially concerning 'ownership' of certain pages by self-appointed guardians of what they are sure is the mainstream position. - See, you're getting different articles about Wikipedia mixed up, as part of an empty rhetorical gesture. There's well-research articles that have found that our sheer size means that the technocratic approach we've used will need to change. There are also people who project their disagreements with mainstream academia onto us because they don't even know who else to address. No one has presented me with much overlap between those two groups. But again, your weak attempt to discredit the site is useless, this site doesn't go with whichever side's argument has the most flourish (not that I even grant that). Try sticking to reason instead of rhetoric.

I believe even Jimmy Wales has admitted to real problems - WP:Lunatic charlatans would indicate Jimbo would place the problem with those outside the scientific mainstream.

This page, we all know, is one of the biggest and hardest topics to assess, and many many papers and books have been published since 2001 and the genome breakthroughs that cast doubt on the outdated 'textbook' material that this page tends to support. - You have no idea what state the article is in, then. Most of the sources concerned with science (not the history, but science) were written after 2001. In the Heredity section alone, only two of the 14 sources cited were written during or before 2001 (one about albinism and one about an accepted exception to heredity's influence). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m gonna have to agree with Ian.thomson here, by this logic we’d have to have a different article for Law of Gravity and Theory of Gravity User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, we certianly should but The point is not to have seperate pages for each. The two can be given in the same page, the point is the two should not redirect each other. "Theory of evolution" can be a section of the page of evolution and the search for the theory of evolution should redirect to that section, not to the "evolution" page itself. Same for Gravity, Law of Gravity and the theory of gravity. The Law and the theory each should have seperate sections on themselves as the scientific law and scientific theory are two different and seperate things besides the scientific phenomeno itself being a seperate thing that includes both. Cheers. --Ruhubelent (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does not even matter if the theory is not the thing, because according to WP policy we do not need separate article for subjects that overlap a lot. To the extent that theory (or the history of theories) maybe needs its own article because it does not overlap enough with an article which should focus on the latest ideas about evolution as a thing, I do see some room for discussion. But is that not covered by our History of evolutionary thought article? And if that is not the non-over-lapping subject matter about the theory as opposed to the thing, then what is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm shocked by Ian.thomson's assertion that, 'that editorial would likely be a secondary source, not a tertiary source that demonstrates mainstream academic consensus.' Surely he is not suggesting that Wikipedia relies mostly on tertiary sources?! WP:NOR makes clear the use of sources, see Policy: 'Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.' Tertiary sources are mostly other encyclopedias, see Policy: 'Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.'

Can we clear this up please before I proceed? A Nature article would surely be a high quality, most reliable, secondary source, and hence the preferred source for use here. I get the point that tertiary sources help in evaluating due weight, but tertiary sources get out of date and we are not here to simply duplicate other encyclopedias. Articles in journals by leading figures, and books by top scientists questioning the accepted theory are surely very valid here. Agreed? Lindosland (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It was pretty clear that Ian was not saying that Wikipedia relies mostly on tertiary sources. He said that a reliable tertiary source would be needed to support the claim that Modern Synthesis is 'as good as dead', and then pointed out that a Nature editorial is not such a source. Since, as you have pointed out, tertiary sources are helpful in establishing due weight when secondary sources contradict each other, I'd support his assertion.

Anyway... what do you mean by 'before I proceed'? Earlier you said that you weren't proposing a changes - are you now proposing one? If so, please outline your suggestion and the relevant source; if you aren't proposing a change, I don't think that continuing this discussion will help to improve the article.Girth Summit (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

My point was not that I was not not here to propose changes, but that at the time I had not yet proposed any specific edits - I was supporting another editor's claim that evolution is not theory of evolution. I want to say, very politely, that I am finding this a hostile environment, in which assumptions are being wrongly made about me. Thus when I tried simply to say that I am a fairly experienced editor it was assumed that I was trying to 'pull rank' and I was told I had less edits than another editor. This breaches WP:DGF, assume good faith, one of the first rules of Wikipedia, regardless of the fact that my number of edits is of course irrelevant. In fact, as I have edited under different names in different times and on different pages (yes that is allowed, before you tell me about WP:sock puppetry), I have many more edits than assumed, again a breach of WP:DGF. I believe the page Neo-Darwinism is an interesting demonstration that I can be effective. That page was created by others, then deleted on the grounds that it was only a specific historical term. I re-created it and argued, only to see it deleted again. Now look at it - and the long succession of edits by me in the name of memestream that took it from a single line to something near it's present state, as very much the article I was trying to get accepted back then in the face of much hostility and quoting of rules. Please bear with me, and bear in mind that another key Wikipedia principle is WP:Be Bold. Sometimes it pays to be bold, rather than too careful, as the instigators of that rule realised. I hope to propose changes to this page, shortly, and support them with secondary sources. Lindosland (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if you had proposed changes to begin with instead of blathering on and on about things that either were unsourced suggestions, or not relevant to anyone besides you, then maybe something like progress might have happened by now (if nothing else, the material you've been contemplating the consideration of planning to announcing the intention of suggesting that you'll someday present would have been analyzed by now). And again, WP:TERTIARY sources that provide "broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources" are what demonstrates the current mainstream academic consensus. Secondary sources would only demonstrate those particular authors' perspective at the moment, rather than what a variety of authors have concluded up until the tertiary source was published. That's how it's done in for any area where there's contention regarding what the mainstream academic consensus is. Notice that no one is arguing with me on that point, just your misunderstanding of that point. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lindosland. 1. We should not get too dramatic about the primary, secondary, tertiary distinction. These categories are not even always clear let alone important. Pretty much any type of source can be good for something, and bad for something. Secondary sources can be problematic when commenting on a whole field, because in a sense such articles are part of a "debate". 2. If there were some passage in the article which gave the impression that science has reached an end point and stopped moving, I think we could definitely tweak it. But is there really such a problem? OTOH, it is pretty clear that a hard core of the ideas of Darwin are still alive and well in standard mainstream biology, and so IMHO it is not wrong to write as if there is significant continuity and long-run consensus on many/most themes in the general "theorizing" of evolution? So what is the problem actually?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘

1 simple question to all: On what basis the two were merged? Are there any valid source saying "evolution = theory of evolution?" @Moxy: @Azcolvin429:, @Lindosland:, @Ian.thomson:, @Dave souza:, @Girth:, @Dunkleosteus77:, @Andrew Lancaster:. I hope I have not neglected anyone from the discussion. --Ruhubelent (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Not simple at all, but apparently deliberately un-simple. Which two articles are you saying have been merged? It has been pointed out to you above that there are quite a bundle of evolution related articles. What are they not covering? Wikipedia does not need every possible article, but only enough articles to cover everything in a reasonable way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, sorry I have just realized I have typed "merged" instead of redirected. I was going to ask "on what basis the two were redirected?" I was not talking about something this article lacks, asking "what are they not covering?" is off-topic here. WP does not need every possible article, no point argued about that. What the point was is "Theory of Evolution" should not redirect to the page of Evolution itself as the two are two seperate things. At best, the page has to have a special section for the theory and the search for theory of evolution ought to redirect to that section. On what basis the "Theory of Evolution" redirects to the page of "Evolution?" --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall any specific doubts being raised about it but the reason for such a redirect, as more-or-less already explained, should be that the sought for term (Theory of Evolution) is covered within the article to which that term is directed. This is why the starting point of such a discussion is, I think, asking you whether or not the theory of evolution is being fully covered or not in the present article. If not, then what is missing? A secondary question might be whether it is better covered in, for example, "History of evolutionary thought". Whether or not they are two different things is not really that interesting. For example, imagine search terms "discussions about evolution", "history of discussions about theories of evolution", etc. We can make as many technically distinct search terms as we like, so they clearly don't all deserve a separate article? Consider WP:MERGE --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the article to find out which parts of it should go to an article called Theory of evolution. The answer is "all parts". Since the term "theory of evolution" is not restricted to one specific theory, such as Lamarckism or the Modern Synthesis, "History of evolutionary thought" belongs there. "Heredity", "Variation", "Mechanisms" and "Outcomes" also belong there. "Evolutionary history of life" too. Also "Applications" and "Social and cultural responses". The article would be this article.

On the other hand, which parts should be removed from this article because they belong only in the other one? The answer is "none". They are all relevant here.

So, your suggestion to split the article just does not make sense in any practical way. The two subjects may be different in a strict sense, but they are too closely interwoven to justify cutting the article apart. What there is to say about evolution is said by the theory of evolution, and what there is to say about the theory of evolution is also about evolution. Also, there is no "The theory of evolution". There are several, most of which are obsolete, such as pangenesis, but they already have their own articles. An article Theory of evolution could be a disambiguation article pointing to all of them. Maybe that is a better solution than the current one?

Look at the articles about the country of Australia and Australia (continent). There are two articles about the same part of the Earth, but they focus on different aspects - politics and geology, mainly. But where are the lines that could split this one? I can't see them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The point is not about the article lacking something or having something unneeded. What we (people who argue in my position) are saying is "Theory of evolution" should not redirect to the article of Evolution. At best, the page has to have a special section for the theory and the search for theory of evolution ought to redirect to that section. Evolution itself is a process, is an event, is a phenomena and the theory of evolution is an explanation given to it. On what basis the theory of evolution = evolution? On what basis the theory of evolution redirects to Evolution? --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia works. Someone might look for "theory of evolution" and they would be redirected to the most relevant article, namely here. Please ask at WP:HELPDESK if unsure about standard procedures for redirects because there is nothing more to say here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No sir, that is not how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia. Redirects' purpose does not cover this case. Check WP:R, please and inform me of content this covers this redirect. "Alternative names" can be redirected, the word Evolution is not an alternative name to the term "theory of evolution." Nor it is the plural/singular form of it. The two are not closely related words though they are related. Theory of evolution is not more or less specific form of the word evolution. The only one that covers this situation is "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." which comes to my point: The article should have unique section for "the theory of evolution" and the search for evolution ought to redirect to that section rather than the article itself. This point of mine should be carefully read by @Azcolvin429: as well as he agrees with Johnuniq. --Ruhubelent (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've given your post a more appropriate indent so that everyone can indeed see it. But I'll keep it short now: I disagree about your (im)practical proposal and also about the implied WP policy understanding. The "theory" of evolution in the only way I can understand you to be writing is not any specific historical or recent "theory" or account, such as Darwin's, at all but the whole (studied) subject or discipline, it is (to use a typical word format for such disciplines) "evolutionology"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq. There is nothing more to say here. Quit frankly, this discussion is gratuitous—a endless debate over semantics. There is no difference between the two terms. Lets stick with WP:COMMONNAME and the overwhelming consensus currently on here, in the past here, and with the academic community. I have never, in my years of studying evolutionary biology, read or heard of the terms "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" being used differently in any sense worthy of permitting their own encyclopedia articles. The only place any encyclopedic discussion of the semantic differences belong in history of evolutionary thought or the non-existent article, philosophy of evolution—and only if it is well supported by primary and secondary references that explicitly discuss it. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 08:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

But OTOH I think such explanations of how Wikipedia works are needed every now and then for newer editors. It is also good to reconfirm how the redirects are set-up etc, and that there are rationales.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This article covers both, as is evident from the box at the top with links for "History of evolutionary theory", a brief account of main theories in the lead, and the first section "History of evolutionary thought" covering development of theory.
For anyone who doesn't notice all these clues, perhaps mention should be added to the first paragraph: a sentence at the end of that paragraph could state "These processes are examined and explained by evolutionary theory".
Any other wording should avoid the common mistake that "it's only a theory". However, Evolution as fact and theory is too detailed and specialised for prominence in the first paragraph of the lead. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well Dave I have not really seen any clear counter-argument made against your contention that the article as written does cover "both" subjects (to the extent that the current "theory" of evolution and the "subject" or "study" of evolution are separable). I understood that the original contention was that WP should not try to combine, that we should try to pry them apart almost by force, which I think has been addressed now in terms of normal WP policy and practice. But following the lead of presuming someone might raise the question of whether "theory" should redirect to a discussion of the history, I think that the *current version* of evolutionary theory, the "the state of the art" or consensus or whatever we want to call it, is better covered here than in the history article, which is more about how we got here. "Meta" debates about "fact versus theory" are, in my opinion, one step removed from the whole subject/"theory" of evolution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

More Helpful Disambiguation[edit]

I would suggest renaming this article as "Biological Evolution". I would also suggest a reference to Evolution as fact and theory, because it discusses the term Evolution additionally in non-biological terms, whereas the current links at the top are mainly regarding biological evolution. If there were to be a page named just "Evolution", it should cover more topics that just biological evolution, IMHO. I think the current "Evolution (disambiguation)" link covers too many items and is not as useful as would be desired.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.98.161 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says that we should call things by their normal name - most people would understand that evolution generally refers to the evolution of life forms, and I'd expect that most people searching for 'Evolution' would expect to arrive at this page. I agree that the disambiguation page is very long, but I'm not sure there's much to be done about that - the word is used in lots of different areas. It's not excessively difficult to scroll down and find the particular article you would be looking for. Girth Summit (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this has been proposed in the past and the consensus has declined the change. I agree with the consensus and believe WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Yes, the term evolution is used in many ways, but the primary usage of the term is in reference to biological evolution. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 17:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[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, and 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] Byrne, Katharine & Nichols, Richard A., Heredity January 1999, Volume 82, Number 1, Pages 7-15 doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6884120

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

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

[crutch-13] Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.

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

[15] 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&ndash, 976

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

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

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

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

[Futuyma-20] Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.

[Lande-21] Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983). "The measurement of selection on correlated characters". Evolution. 37: 1210&ndash, 26}. doi:10.2307/2408842.

[understandingevolution-22] "Mechanisms: the processes of evolution". Understanding Evolution. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2006-07-14.

[23] Gould, Stephen J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00613-5.

[Darwin-24] Darwin, Charles (1860). On the Origin of Species (2nd ed.). London: John Murray. pp. p. 490.CS1 maint: Extra text (link)

[25] "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). The Interacademy Panel on International Issues. 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
*"Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-25.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Talk:Evolution

Contents

Introduction[edit]

A better version of the lead[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Evolution =/= theory of evolution[edit]

More Helpful Disambiguation[edit]

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Tools

Print/export

Languages