Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 7 December 2023 (→Advice On Working With Students: cm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

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. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. Therefore it is against Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. Further information: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Undue weight 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. In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism. Thus, as a consequence of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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. Further information: Teach the Controversy and Level of support for evolution 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. Further information: Evolution as fact and theory 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. Main article: 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. 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. 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. Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas, in the Italian Wall Lizard, and in Darwin's finches. 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. So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution. Main article: Evidence 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. Further information: Microevolution and Macroevolution 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. With regard to the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Misplaced Pages'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 Introduction to evolution Objections to evolution Creation–evolution controversy 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. NPOV disputed Accuracy of Blanket Statement Neutrality dispute NPOV Dispute Neutrality based on factualness of evolution Heavy evolutionist bias POV Issue No overwhelming scientific consensus The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section. Alternative Views Criticism section Neutral point of view Uhh... ok... Balance? Balancing point of view Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. Bickering Evolution as fact Fact vs. Theory Evolution vs. Theory of Evolution Newton's Theory Fact versus theory POV Theory Lack of Neutrality POV There is scientific evidence against evolution. "Matter cannot organize itself" Macro/Micro Proposed insertions Scientific problems with 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. ^ 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 Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2007.The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Great Wall of China has impacted the process of evolution in plants? Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It 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 Top‑importance Evolution is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology 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 Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Top‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology 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. Molecular Biology: Genetics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History of Science Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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 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 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages". Denver Post. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (2015-08-15). "On Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages: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.

Other talk page banners

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 Misplaced Pages 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. More archives: Talk:Evolution/Archived subpages, Special:PrefixIndex/Evolution/, Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Evolution/, Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution/

Removing description of natural selection from the lead

I mentioned earlier that the lead contained a description of natural selection and this shouldn't be there. I deleted it but Efbrazil immediately reverted my edit. They did not try to defend putting a description of natural selection in the lead while ignoring the other mechanisms of evolution that are described in the article.

Instead, Efbrazil says, "Undid revision 1168878355 by Genome42 (talk) This is too large a change to not run through the talk page first. Also, consider how a fifth grader will read what you have written in this edit- it is far too advanced for someone without background to understand. At least what was there was a hook for a fifth grader to begin to understand the concepts involved." That's a bizarre statement since I only added two extra words to what was already in the lead. Furthermore, this is a science article in an encyclopedia, not a book for fifth graders. Britannica and other encyclopedias do not write for fifth graders.

I'd also like to note, for the record, that the current description of natural selection is not very good in spite of the fact that this is supposed to be a featured article.

I intend to restore my edit unless someone can come up with a good reason why we should be explaining (poorly) the mechanism of natural selection in the lead to a large article on evolution that discusses many aspects of the subject. I'm confused about why Efbrazil is resisting the effort to make the article better without engaging in a serious discussion about the issues. Genome42 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an educational tool that is used worldwide, principally on smartphones to look up basic facts. That is particularly true for a foundational article like this. We need to offer accessible content to someone new to evolution.

The existing text makes the foundational element of evolution clear to people without scientific education. Jumping straight into Mendelian inheritance, mutation, gene migration, and genetic drift without that grounding is going to confuse and alienate our audience.

Restoring reverted edits is warring, see WP:WAR. Efbrazil (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. The text you are objecting to was already in the lead. (It's still there.) All I've done now is add "population genetics" and moved genetic drift to second place in the list. Do you want to remove that entire paragraph? Why?

Why haven't you replied to my proposal to delete the bad description of natural selection from the lead? That was the most important part of my edit - the one that you just reverted because it's not suitable for fifth graders.

I propose to remove it unless you can come up with a good reason for keeping it in the lead while ignoring random genetic drift, mutations, and gene flow.

Reverting reasonable edits with no attempt to discuss the science is warring. Please stop. Genome42 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Natural selection is foundational for understanding evolution and a clear description was put there for good reason. I don't see what is "bad" about the description. It just appears you want to see other evolutionary mechanisms more prominently discussed.

I am fine with mendelian genetics being talked about after we lay down the basics of natural selection. I have no objection to you adding a sentence on mendelian genetic mechanisms to that 3rd paragraph of the lead if that scratches your itch.

Again (and again), if you think I am off base then see WP:DR. Efbrazil (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There are three kinds of natural selection: positive, negative (purifying), and balancing (see natural selection. The description in the lead only describes "favourable" selection. It lists four "facts" but only three principles are mentioned in the section on natural selection. The point about more offspring being produced than can possibly survive is not required for selection. Think about what happens when a growing population of bacteria is treated with a drug. (This needs to be corrected in the main body of the article.)

I'm not asking for the other mechanisms of evolution to be described in the lead. That would be just as inappropriate as picking only one of them. That kind of detail does not belong in the introduction to a comprehensive article on evolution - it will be covered in considerable detail in the rest of the article.

But there's a more important issue at stake. Most people have only a rudimentary understanding of evolution. They think that the only important thing worth knowing is some simplistic fifth grade understanding of positive natural selection. But evolutionary biology is much more sophisticated and complex than that and we owe it to our readers to disabuse them of their misconceptions. You can't fully understand evolution if you think that positive natural selection on big animals is all there is and you certainly can't challenge the facts of evolution if you think that's how real evolutionary biologists view evolution. Creationists make this mistake all the time and we need to correct that false view of evolution and teach everyone how scientists really think about evolution.

The current lead feeds into the common misconceptions of evolution by presenting a simplistic description of natural selection right up front in the lead, giving the impression that this is just about all you need to know. We can, and should, do better than that. Genome42 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm worried about your to and fro with Genome42 in relation to this article on Evolution, because I think you need to explain why you disagree with him. I should declare an interest as I agree with what he says, but even if I didn't I think he should be allowed make edits without having them reverted for no clearly stated reason. Genome42 is a highly respected Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, the author of a major textbook, and of a more recent book on the genome. Your user page is extremely vague about your qualifications, but on your Talk page I read "I'm a liberal who lives in Seattle that has a graduate degree from UW and all that good stuff". OK, but a graduate degree at what level and in what subject? That doesn't of course mean that Genome42's opinion needs to be accepted without question, but it does mean that it should be taken seriously, not only by you but also by other editors of unknown qualifications who have reverted his edits to other pages. Athel cb (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please let's not get off track by reporting or calling for information about anyone's private lives. Misplaced Pages aims to report what experts have published. Qualifications should not be part of the discussion because that would mean we are talking about something beyond that mission, i.e. this is not the place to publish new research. Clearly the above discussion is however within our normal mission, and it is about how to report published information. No one seems to be debating complex technical matters. What I see is a discussion about how to present and break up the information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Genome42, are you talking about Modern synthesis (20th century)? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77 I’m talking about two things. (1) whether a description of positive natural selection needs to be in the lead, and (2) whether that description is the best we can do. So far, nobody has come up with a good reason for keeping a description of positive natural selection in the lead while ignoring other kinds of selection and other mechanisms of evolution. Do you have a good argument for keeping it?

We should have an explanation of the Modern Synthesis in the main body of the article along with a discussion about whether it is the current best model of evolutionary theory. Genome42 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster Thank-you for joining the discussion. Please feel free to give us your opinion on how to improve this article. Genome42 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. At this stage I have neither taken a side nor come up with a proposal. I think I sort of understand why positive natural selection has a privileged position. If we think about how to write a lesson for example, we typically start with whatever concepts we think the students will be best able to lock onto as a starting point. Does that make any sense? Again, I am not taking a side, but just trying to think through the pros and cons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster Thank-you for taking sides and expressing an opinion. If I understand you correctly, you think we should retain a description of positive natural selection in the lead because that's what students expect to see when they consult the Misplaced Pages article on evolution. That only makes sense if the version that students can "lock onto" is the correct view of evolution.

Do you believe that's the best scientific view of evolution that we should be presenting in this article? What evidence do you have that this is the view described by experts in textbooks of evolutionary biology? The next paragraph in the lead says that evolution is a process that changes DNA in a population and the mechanisms are natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow. Do you think that will confuse students who think that positive natural selection in animals is the only mechanism they expect to hear about?

If the rest of the article goes out of its way to describe other mechanisms of evolution then what's the point of emphasizing just one of them in the lead? Don't you think this could reinforce a common misunderstanding of evolution; namely, that it's all about positive natural selection? I've actually taught evolution and that's not how I wrote the lesson plan.

I believe that one has to have a deep understanding of the correct scientific view of a subject in order to edit/write a Misplaced Pages article. Do you agree or do you think we should cater to the common beliefs and not write articles that might challenge what students expect to hear? Genome42 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not take a side, and that's because I think the core of your concern is reasonable. The practical question is whether you are being so principled that it is counter productive. (Please also consider your talk page style. Your post is filled with leading questions and attempts to pin ideas on me which have nothing to do with anything I said. Don't treat people like idiots.) OTOH I'm not sure we need to take a side. A lead is different from the body. Whatever we write in the lead, it is not the body of the article and so I think we all agree that the lead does not need to explained everything. The most important thing is that the lead should not mislead or give a wrong impression.

Is this correct? You want readers of the lead to be alerted to the fact that there is more than one way in which natural selection works. You want us to be saying that "you might already know about X, but that is only one example". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the editor's identity and qualifications is entirely appropriate in this case. He lists it on his User: and it's directly relevant to this article and questions of paedogogy. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes such sophistic debate strategies useful to the discussion. It is a distraction at best, and looks a bit deliberate. Let's just think through what is best for the article, as editors? I don't see anything particularly technical about this discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster I apologize. I though you were defending the idea that positive natural selection should have a “privileged position.” Are you okay with removing it from the lead and alerting readers that there are several important mechanisms of evolution?

BTW, do you agree that I’m not trying to publish new research in this article? I’m simply trying to explain basic principles that have been around for half a century. Genome42 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I could understand and empathize with both ideas. (1) The idea that we use the most well-known example as a hook to open the article without making the lead too complex. (2) The argument that this might encourage a traditional over-simplification and misunderstanding. I don't see any reason (apart from polarizing styles of discussion) that both aims can't be considered, and possibly even used at the same time. For example in an article about early Frankish kings the lead might say "Frankish emperors, such as Charlemagne" (who is particularly well-known example). The wording here alerts readers to the fact that this is only an example. Such use of well-known examples does not need to create misunderstandings if the wording is well-chosen? Using illustrative examples is quite a normal way of writing even in academia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is on an extremely broad subject that is introduced early in education. Our primary audience for this article is not graduate students, it is middle schoolers. If your concern is how qualified an editor is, I would suggest the best qualification would be a middle school science teacher. This article needs to be an appropriate WP:TECHNICAL level, favoring clarity over jargon. I do not want to see this article turn into Modern synthesis (20th century).

The article has already been through WP:FAR so it was very carefully constructed and reviewed. I did not write much of any of the content, but I think it should be protected against narrow perspectives demanding a complete rewrite. The changes Genome42 has demanded so far have been almost exclusively focused on the lead, ignoring the content of the article and holding previous lead content in contempt. I have been trying to guide them towards constructive inputs. Efbrazil (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@EfbrazilCan you give me an example of an important science article on Misplaced Pages that’s written at the level of middle schoolers? Can you give me an example of a middle school science teacher who understands evolution well enough to write an encyclopedia article for Britannica or any other encyclopedia?

Also, I challenge you to find an evolutionary biologist who thinks this article is carefully constructed and accurate. I’ve already corrected a number of serious errors. I will continue to do so in order to make this article scientifically accurate unless I’m blocked by other editors. Genome42 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that there is no need to write at middle school level. We should avoid errors, and simplifications are errors. Please let's not make unreasonable demands on each other. This discussions seems to be more difficult than it needs to be?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason I said middle school level is that is both the age at which this topic is typically introduced and also is going to be the primary reading level of our audience. Accessibility of content is particularly important in the lead, which is all the vast majority of visitors ever read. Good writing is both accurate and accessible. We need to introduce people to the topic and walk them through the basics, not throw up a wall of jargon and alienate them. Efbrazil (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with that either. The question in practice is where simplification actually starts to create different messages. This can be difficult to agree upon, but it is sensible that we focus on that question a bit from all sides?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm not trying to be exclusionary at all. Efbrazil (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixing the lead (again)

The discussion is going nowhere so here are some small changes that will improve the lead a little bit.

The first paragraph has been fixed by removing the incorrect statement. The second sentence now reads, " Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations."

The second paragraph emphasizes natural selection. It begins with, "The theory of evolution by natural selection was conceived ..." This is misleading because it confuses evolutionary theory with the mechanism of natural selection. By saying "The theory of evolution" we create two problem: (1) it plays into several common misconceptions such as natural selection is a theory (it's a fact) and there's only one theory of evolution, and (2) it conflicts with the third paragraph (see below).

I suggest we avoid these problems by just saying, "Natural selection was conceived ..." Please let me know if you object to this change and your reasons for objecting.

The third paragraph begins with, "In the early 20th century, competing ideas of evolution were refuted ..." This is confusing because genetic drift was not refuted - it was added to evolutionary theory along with mutation and gene flow. I realize that the existing sentence was referring to other ideas about evolution that were discarded but we don't really need to go there in the lead. The important point is that other ideas besides natural selection were added in the 20th century including the Neutral Theory and the Nearly-Neutral Theory. Also, it's not clear that mutationism has been refuted.

I suggest we edit this sentence so that the entire paragraph reads,

"In the early 20th century, natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance and population genetics and expanded to give rise to modern evolutionary theory. In this synthesis the basis for heredity is in DNA molecules that pass information from generation to generation and the processes that change DNA in a population include natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow."

This has the added advantage of avoiding the misleading term "THE theory of evolution." Please let me know whether you agree with this change; if not, please offer another suggestion that will make the history more accurate. Genome42 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In your proposed paragraph, natural selection is being used a noun. Shouldn't it be an adjective? Something "natural selection theory"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster

Natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow are all nouns and they are used as nouns in the main article; for example, "Natural selection can act at different levels of organisation, such as genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and species."

Chapter 4 of "Origin of Species" is titled "Natural Selection." Here's what Charles Darwin said, "This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection."

Also, natural selection is a well-demonstrated fact, not a theory. Evolutionary theory proposes that populations evolve by the mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift (and other things).

Someone above suggested that, "This discussions seems to be more difficult than it needs to be?" and I agree with him. Genome42 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point. In the sentence I am referring to you are not referring to the phenomenon, but rather the scientific narrative. Your word use is a kind of short hand, but I think technically wrong, not good for encyclopedic writing. Perhaps you missed my point because you seem very distracted about trying to avoid the word "theory". (Strangely "evolutionary theory" is ok for you, but not "theory of evolution".) Isn't this going along with the way creationists over-interpret that word? Why bother? Science does not demand finality about facts. It is made up of various types of narratives. I see no reason to apologise for using the word theory. Anyway, if you don't like the normal term for this narrative find another one but please distinguish the natural phenomenon from the accounts people make of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster I think everyone needs to step back and look at the entire lead. I think it's too long, it contains information, such as a partial history of evolutionary theory, that doesn't belong in the introduction.

With the recent addition of adaptation it's even longer and the emphasis on the 18th century view of evolution has been strengthened.

The first paragraph correctly describes the current view of evolution and correctly identifies the two main mechanisms of allele frequency change; natural selection and genetic drift.

The next paragraph describes the 18th century history and contains a simplistic 18th century view of evolution by natural selection.

The third paragraph begins by stating that in the early 1900s competing ideas of evolution were refuted. What does that mean? The only idea other than natural selection that has been mentioned is genetic drift and it certainly wasn't refuted. It then says "evolution was combined with Mendelian inheritance and population genetics." What does "evolution" mean in this context? Does anyone think that makes sense? If not, why hasn't it been corrected and why is everyone being so critical of my attempt to fix it by saying "natural selection was combined with ..."?

We need to be very careful about saying "THE theory of evolution" (note the emphasis on "the"). That's because evolutionary theory is complex and controversial. It includes things like the neutral theory, the nearly-neutral theory, kin selection, the drift-barrier hypothesis, constructive neutral evolution, the gene-centric view of evolution, and many others. There is no single theory of evolution that justifies referring to THE theory of evolution.

In addition, by referring to "THE theory of evolution" we play into a major misconception that views the whole idea of evolution as just a theory. That's the view of evolution critics but it's also common among the rest of the general public. We know that evolution (change in allele frequencies) is a fact, not a theory, and I believe we have an obligation to explain this in the article. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually can't parse the second sentence as it is proposed. Should the word 'include' be 'including', and perhaps be preceded by a comma? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That sentence does the reader no favors, running on at great enough length to obscure who does which, and with what, and to whom. A comma after "generation to generation" might make it clearer that "the processes ... include "

Just plain Bill (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit,@Just plain Bill

Okay let's revert to the two sentences that are currently in the main article. I didn't think it was clear that the new modern evolutionary theory also proposed the inclusion of genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow. If you read it that way then it's okay. The paragraph will now read,

"In the early 20th century, natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance and population genetics and expanded to give rise to modern evolutionary theory. In this synthesis the basis for heredity is in DNA molecules that pass information from generation to generation. The processes that change DNA in a population include natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow."

Genome42 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No complaint from me about carving that sentence into two digestible pieces. cheers! Just plain Bill (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

FAQ Problem

The FAQ section for the explanation as to observed evolution links to an article about a flower that doesn't include evidence supporting that view. Find a better article. 2405:6580:D420:5C00:483D:F518:3E09:635D (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading the article again. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Strange non-sequitur comment

“The debate over Darwin's ideas did not generate significant controversy in China.” Why is this odd comment slapped onto the end of the intro? Sounds like couched nationalism to me. Alexandermoir (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Advice On Working With Students

Greetings I am a professor attempting to show students how to edit and do research using Misplaced Pages. I am curious if others have done this and if they found ways to help students understand better what information is relevant and what information is not. Lady3Eye (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi - this is a very useful link for teachers and professors looking to educate their students on how Misplaced Pages works. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are featured articles
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Biology articles
• Top-importance Biology articles
• WikiProject Biology articles
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• FA-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• Top-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
• FA-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Top-importance Molecular Biology articles
• FA-Class Genetics articles
• Top-importance Genetics articles
• WikiProject Genetics articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• FA-Class history of science articles
• Top-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class science articles
• High-importance science articles
• FA-Class taxonomic articles
• Top-importance taxonomic articles
• WikiProject Tree of Life articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by The Denver Post
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English