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

Archives

Index 2003–2005 Historical POV forks September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005 December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005 June 12–October 24, 2005 October 24–November 23, 2005 November 28–December 14, 2005 December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006 2006 January 2–February 6, 2006 February 6–March 23, 2006 March 3–April 5, 2006 March 31–May 4, 2006 April 20–July 7, 2006 June 24–August 25, 2006 June 27–August 26, 2006 August 18–October 2, 2006 October 1–November 16, 2006 November 6–27, 2006 November 26–December 20, 2006 December 11–23, 2006 December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007 December 20, 2006 December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007 2007 January 6–9 January 9–11 January 11–15 January 15–20 January 21–February 8 February 8–February 18 February 19–March 12 March 12–March 28 March 28–April 15 April 13–April 16 April 16–May 6 April 27–May 16 May 15–May 19 May 17–May 29 May 21–October 31 July 15–September 21 September 22–November 18 November 18–January 16, 2008 2008 January 16– March 12 March 12– April 8 April 8– June 16 June 16– Current

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

See my addition. I've read the previous physics and "philosophical" paper that is easier to digest, but I've so far only read the abstract for this newest paper. I didn't even know there were any serious doubts (now resolved?) about evolution's compatibility with quantum theory..

I thought of making Constructor theory of Life a redirect. Should it or Constructor theory be added here under See also (or in main text)? This page is locked and very important, I do want some opinions on this theory before proceding.. I'm only a physics amateur (and interested in biology). comp.arch (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Can you cite oh say 50 to 100 peer reviewed articles from the biological and especially evolutionary literature that have themselves cited Constructor Theory of Life? Given the tens of thousands of articles in biology published every year, this should be an easy task... Otherwise, my appraisal is that what seems to intrigue you is probably without merit and almost certainly not significant.173.189.73.230 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to that Wikipedia article's lede:"... horizontal gene transfer is a highly significant phenomenon and among single-celled organisms perhaps the dominant form of genetic transfer." I think it needs to be given much more prominence here. The VAST majority of organisms on Earth are single celled. If hgt is dominant there, then it is THE dominant transfer mechanism, Q.E.D. I am not sure about the transfer of genetic information (DNA & RNA) from viruses being as significant, but clearly based on the estimates I've seen, viral genetic information comprises a significant part of our DNA and probably should also be mentioned (separately). I understand that this is a fairly "new" area of understanding, but treating Evolution, while ignoring almost completely very important genetic processes seems to be putting our heads in the sand. I'd say that epigenetic phenotype modifications (specifically methylation of DNA/gene silencing) also should be prominently mentioned because both of these things, along with germ cell mutations and somatic variation of the DNA between cells in multicellular organisms (we're all chimera) ADD to, and subtly change, the idea that what we are (genetically) is the product of (only) our parent's DNA.173.189.73.230 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which type of evolution the author is referring to. There is speciation (which we observe) and macro-evolution (change of kinds, which is not observed). Often, writers put them together as if they are the same, but many have been confused on this issue. This change would take place upon the first two sentences in the article; perhaps it could be changed to "Evolution is of two essential definitions: speciation and macro-evolution. Speciation (which we see today) is variation within a family, while macro-evolution (not observed today) is the change from one kind of organism to another (e.g. cat to dog ... whale to cow.)." It could be something along those lines. If it is scientifically inaccurate, please don't post it, but if it is, please edit the article. 24.57.225.109 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read Q6 of the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Stickee (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I might suggest a small shift of emphasis.

The 'theory of evolution' and 'Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection' are often used as synonyms but they are really two different things. Evolution is indisputable fact, Darwin's theory is about the mechanism of evolution by natural selection: it is (slightly) less certain than evolution itself and can thus be argued against. I always try and carefully distinguish between the two lest anyone who thinks they have found a flaw in Darwin's theory think they have also found a flaw in the theory of evolution. Cassandra 2.96.13.183 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Darwin's first version, and the modern standard versions are distinguished in the article? Could you clarify what needs clarifying? You seem to emphasize a concern with the term "natural selection", but the concept of selection (which is actually a word being used metaphorically in biology) is still standard?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe evolution is factual but it is a theory and it should be stated that it is merely a theory for neutrality and factual reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodieshady496 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. Specifically Q3. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the theory of evolution is merely a theory then how can evolution be a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Evolution as theory and fact. --McSly (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct. Thanks for the information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution be changed to The Theory of Evolution, as this may be taught in schools, but is still not accepted as fact. 2601:E:8280:7EE:7863:DE0:419A:FF6E (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Unsurprisingly, this has been suggested before, but consensus is very clearly against you - please see the archives - all 65 of them.
For a summary. please also see the FAQs at the top of this page - particularly No 3 - Arjayay (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the structure for the article does not allow the reader to link holistically the concepts of evolutionary theory. As an example of a better structure, I might suggest the Spanish version of the article. I would propose a new index in order to improve the organization of the article and allow for a better understanding of evolutionary theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.163.115 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the organization and clarity of this article could be improved. The Spanish version of the Evolution article does have better organization.

Translation of Evolution article (Spanish version):

1 Evolution as documented fact

1.1 Evidence of the evolutionary process

1.2 The origin of life

1.3 The evolution of life on Earth

2 Scientific theories about evolution

2.1 History of evolutionary thought

2.2 Darwinism

2.3 Neo-Darwinism

2.4 Modern evolutionary synthesis

2.5 Expansion of the modern synthesis

3 Modern evolutionary synthesis

3.1 Variability

3.1.1 Mutation

3.1.2 Genetic recombination

3.1.3 Population genetics

3.1.4 Gene Flow

3.2 Mechanisms of evolution

3.2.1 Natural Selection

3.2.2 Genetic Drift

3.3 Consequences of evolution

3.3.1 Adaptation

3.3.2 Coevolution

3.3.3 Speciation

3.3.4 Extinction

3.4 Microevolution and macroevolution

4 Expansion of the modern synthesis

4.1 Paleobiology and evolutionary rates

4.2 Environmental causes of mass extinctions

4.3 Sexual selection and altruism

4.4 Macroevolution, promising monsters and punctuated equilibrium

4.5 Synthesis of developmental biology and evolutionary theory

4.6 Microbiology and horizontal gene transfer

4.7 Endosymbiosis and origin of eukaryotic cells

4.8 Changes in the expression of genes involved in the inheritance

5 Experiments and studies on the evolutionary process

5.1 Direct observation of the evolutionary process in bacteria

5.2 Computer simulation of the process of biological evolution

6 Impacts of the theory of evolution

6.1 Evolution and religion

6.2 Other theories of evolution and scientific reviews of the synthetic theory

6.2.1 Other minority hypothesis

7 See also

8 References

9 Further reading

10 External links

Please consider the organization of the following source:

Understanding Evolution Website 2014. Understanding evolution: your one-stop source for information on evolution. Collaborative project of University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. Accessed 13-Dec-2014.

Evolution 101

1 An introduction to evolution

2 The history of life: looking at the patterns

• The family tree

• Understanding phylogenies

• Building the tree

• Homologies and analogies

• Using the tree for classification

• Adding time to the tree

• How we know what happened when

• Important events in the history of life

3 Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

• Descent with modification

• Mechanisms of change

• Genetic variation

• Mutations

• The causes of mutations

• Gene flow

• Sex and genetic shuffling

• Development

• Genetic drift

• Natural selection

• What about fitness?

• Sexual selection

• Artificial selection

• Adaptation

• Misconceptions about natural selection

• Coevolution

4 Microevolution

• Defining microevolution

• Detecting microevolutionary change

• Mechanisms of microevolution

5 Speciation

• Defining a species

• Defining speciation

• Causes of speciation

• Reproductive isolation

• Evidence for speciation

• Cospeciation

6 Macroevolution

• What is macroevolution?

• Patterns in macroevolution

7 The big issues

• The pace of evolution

• Diversity in clades

• Looking at complexity

• Trends in evolution

TheProfessor (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't something be said about the flaws in the theory of evolution on this page to give an unbiased view of the theory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogmyth (talk • contribs)

New sections belong at the bottom, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Those blue words are links to site policies and guidelines that back up the material I discuss. Given your other edits, it's clear that you're here to push a creationist POV and may not be here to build an unbiased encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These edits have been reverted by multiple users because "This article is specific to evolution in biology", and the edit "appears contentious".

This article's content is about biological evolution, and (per WP:LEDE) the intro summarizes the article. The removed content discussed a number of uses of the word "evolution" that had nothing to do with biology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page is about "biologcal evolution" and the biological evolution page REDIRECTS there! Why? That makes NO SENSE! The page is named "evolution". Not "biological evolution". Where should "evolution" be described, if the "evolution" page is to be RESERVED FOR "biological evolution" while the "biological evolution" page is left blank except for a redirect to the "evolution" page? In my opinion, that is HIDING WHAT EVOLUTION IS from the public. Is that what Wikipedia is for? To deceive the public? DonaldKronos (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the scholarly and technical definition of the word evolution, evolution IS just biological evolution. Only colloquially does it refer to other forms of change. And since this is an encyclopedia, there is a natural preference for using terms in a scholarly/technical way, hence the evolution article is about biological evolution only. Other encyclopedias do it the exact same way.01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "evolution IS just biological evolution" -- Response: Bull SH*T! BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is "just biological evolution". EVOLUTION is not! What religion told you that silly lie? I'm really SICK AND TIRED OF THE CENSORSHIP IN HERE! I have noticed that the article is written as if it were meant to discredit evolution, rather than to explain it. Now, should I continue trying to assume good intentions? DonaldKronos (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My scientific education told me that. My love of words that is so extensive that I read the dictionary told me that. Other encyclopedias tell me that. Other scientific experts tell me that. And I find it strange that you think this article is written to discredit evolution. Most of the time, we get people claiming its too pro-evolution.

Now please, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Its a rule, not a recommendation. (which is exactly why you should continue trying to assume good intentions) I highly recommend abiding by it. Failure to do so generally leads to getting your account and perhaps even your IP address blocked.Farsight001 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Evolution, in this context, refers to biological evolution, not all possible applications of the term. Your posts continue to be insulting and rude, while ignoring all feedback you receive. Zarcusian (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported DonaldKronos for edit warring. I'd've been more willing to look the other way if he hadn't been completely hostile to everyone he's interacted with. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do see the "NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence(s) without consulting the discussion page first. This lead has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks." at the top now. Didn't notice it before... so yes, when my changes were deleted, it certainly looked like vandalism to me. I'll post my proposed changed here in the talk page, but really.... does it make ANY SENSE to have an "evolution" page, that is all about ONE KIND OF THING EVOLVING IN ONE SPECIFIC WAY, when everything capable of accumulating changes evolves? If there is a reason why my hard work should be thrown away, PLEASE , SOMEBODY, kindly explain it to me.

Here's the text of the first two paragraphs after the changes I had made...

Evolution in its broadest sense, is the accumulation of change. In this sense, anything in which changes accumulate, evolves. This is true of culture^[1], language^[2], computer software^[3][4], technology^[5], knowledge^[6][7], automation^[8], and so on. A quick web search for information about the evolution of any such thing should provide plenty of reference material.

Probably the most well known type of evolution, accumulation of hereditary modification^[9], also known as descent with modification, causes the accumulation of change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Such evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.^[10]

...There's nothing off topic about any of that, nor was it poorly written, nor was it poorly references, so why was it deleted?

This is what it is being reverted to...

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.^[10]

...again, that paragraph is NOT about "evolution". It is, as I stated in my additions, about "accumulation of hereditary modification". That is a SUBSET of "evolution", and should be given its own page, if it can't be seen with an actual description of what "evolution" is. DonaldKronos (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the evolution page for evolution in biology, or "biological evolution", rather than about the subject of evolution? Shouldn't the evolution in biology or biological evolution page be for such topics, if there is something wrong with treating them as part of the subject of evolution? Embryos evolve into babies, who evolve into children, who evolve into adults, who evolve into old people, all through the process of the accumulation of change. That is as much BIOLOGICAL evolution as evolution through descent with modification is... but I see no place for such information on that "biological evolution" page disguised as an "evolution" page. Now, how should I treat that? Can I make a suggestion? I don't even know where one would go! So I edited the page, to try to make it actually about the topic it's named after, and the response I got did not feel at all like a community treating me as a member. It felt like being attacked. So if my response to feeling like I've been attacked isn't the greatest, please forgive me.... but I have NO IDEA how to correct what I see as a MAJOR PROBLEM in that page.... especially since correcting it seems to be off limits. Should it be? Really?

I would think that a Wikipedia page about evolution should be allowed to evolve... Especially with all the damage being done out there by people claiming that evolution doesn't happen. Are we trying to make them right? I hope not.

Speaking of evolution, I had added the following short paragraph, saved the changes... somehow apparently inadvertently then deleted those same changes, and then wrote the above paragraph to replace the one below, which I thought was just lost... but turned out to be in the revision history...

It seems to me that the evolution page should be allowed to evolve. Especially considering the damage being done to human society by people claiming that evolution doesn't happen. Well... it happened, and it got reverted.

So does anyone read this? Or an I typing all of this for nothing? This whole page is like a big wall of text, and the references in the quotes I posted are showing up at the bottom... forcing the text that would OTHERWISE be at the bottom to scroll up. Is it perhaps time for wikis to evolve?

DonaldKronos (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many people, I imagine, have this page on their watchlist. This page is about biological evolution, as has been explained to you. Please don't take the reverts personally. Learning how things work around here can be somewhat daunting at times. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking it personally. I'm taking it as an attack against humanity. Yes, it has been explained that the "evolution" page is not about "evolution" but about "biological evolution". So I added information about how "biological evolution" is a subset of "evolution" and that got deleted ALSO! DonaldKronos (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldKronos Would it not be more prudent to make a page discussing non-colloquial/broader definitions of evolution beyond biological evolution?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would make sense, except that there is nothing non-colloquial about "evolution". The fact that "biological evolution" is on the "evolution" page isn't bad. The fact that "evolution" is not on the "evolution" page, is ridiculous, and that "biological evolution" is not on the "biological evolution" page, is also ridiculous!