Talk:Evolution

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions are rephrased objections to evolution that users have argued should be included in the text of Evolution. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to evolution, to be interjected into a science article like Evolution.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?

A1: This is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth.

Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Rejection of evolution by religious groups give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not.

Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID.^[1] In 1987 only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.^[2]

Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Wikipedia's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones.

Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?

A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory.

Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact.

Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well supported it is.

When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?

A4: Once again, this depends on how one is defining the terms proof and proven. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to an argument or demonstration showing that a proposition is completely certain and logically necessary; in other uses, proof refers to the establishment and accumulation of experimental evidence to a degree at which it lends overwhelming support to a proposition. Therefore, a proven proposition in the mathematical sense is one which is formally known to be true, while a proven proposition in the more general sense is one which is widely held to be true because the evidence strongly indicates that this is so ("beyond all reasonable doubt", in legal language).

In the first sense, the whole of evolutionary theory is not proven with absolute certainty, but there are mathematical proofs in evolutionary theory. However, nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on a finite set of facts that have been studied relative to the unproven assumptions of things stirring in the infinite complexity of the world around us. Evolutionary science pushes the threshold of discovery into the unknown. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Absolute proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence, but rather on definition.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

A5: Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over several billion years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales.^[3] However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies.^[4] A famous experiment was developed in 1992 that traced bacterial evolution with precision in a lab. This experiment has subsequently been used to test the accuracy and robustness of methods used in reconstructing the evolutionary history of other organisms with great success.^[5]^[6] Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas,^[7] in the Italian Wall Lizard,^[8] and in Darwin's finches.^[9]

Scientists have observed significant changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution.^[3] So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?

A6: The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different timescales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much.

A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?

A7: To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution:

There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough.
There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Furthermore, technically all fossils are transitional fossils, because no species is fixed and unchanging. For example, you can argue that Homo erectus is a transitional fossil between Homo sapiens and Homo habilis. But in the same line of thought, you can say Homo habilis is a transitional fossil between A. afarensis and Homo erectus, and so on.^[10]^[11]
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium".
Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life.^[12]^[13]
Evolution can't create "irreducibly complex" structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum.
Both the vertebrate eye and the bacterial flagellum are well understood to have evolved from simpler structures. Indeed, simpler eye-like structures (such as the sea squirt's ocellus) can still be found in existing species.^[14] Complex biological traits can also evolve as exaptations, where ancestral structures that evolved for different reasons become coopted for new functions. "Irreducible complexity" is, in any case, neither a scientific concept nor a coherent argument: A less than full understanding of the evolutionary history of a biological structure is not evidence against evolution, any more than a less than full understanding of the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is evidence against gravity. The empirical evidence for evolution is substantial, whereas no evidence has ever been provided for irreducible complexity.^[15]^[16]
Evolution can't create new information.
New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935.^[17]^[18]

With regard to the Wikipedia Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.

Q8: How could life arise by chance?

A8: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life any more than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties—the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

See also

Past discussions

For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Evolution:

The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that evolution is controversial.

The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section.

Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

There is scientific evidence against evolution.

References

^ See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
^ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.
^ ^a ^b The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
^ Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.
^ DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.
^ Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.
^ Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.
^ Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.
^ Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.
^ Hunt, Kathleen (1997). Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Elsberry, Wesley R. (1998). Missing links still missing!?
^ Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.
^ Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
^ Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976
^ Isaak, Mark (2005). Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB200: Irreducible complexity. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Robison, Keith (1996). Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Musgrave, Ian & Baldwin, Rich, et al (2005). Information Theory and Creationism. TalkOrigins Archive.
^ "Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug". New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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, 67: 14 days

Evolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 4, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
February 7, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
May 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
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.

Biology Top‑importance

	Biology portal Evolution is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
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.

Philosophy: Science High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Susan Kruglinski (2006-07-02). "Map: Evolution Evolving". Discover (magazine).
Michael Booth (2007-04-30). "Grading Wikipedia". Denver Post.

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "good," even if "stylistic infelicities abound."; "a fine introduction"; "source list appropriate, and well-rounded." Please examine the findings.(Note - this review prompted the drive to bring the article back to FA.)
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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, 67: 14 days

Arrogant Text

"Evolutionary biologists document the 'fact' that evolution occurs" Like that text was not chosen to provoke responses. Interesting that lots of scientists including leading geneticists do not support evolution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.95.225 (talk • contribs)

Which scientists and leading geneticists do not support evolution? (Please list only those with peer-reviewed papers, please.) Mindmatrix 15:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ~~mildly~~ clearly discussed in the FAQ above. See it or discuss this at talkorigins. Andrew Colvin (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fact animals change over time... the 'theory of evolution' is a collection of ideas to explain the observation. Gravity's a good analogy i think. Things fall to the ground, this is a observable fact.. but the 'Theory of gravitation' seeks to explain the phenomenon. I think you confuse what is fact and theory in scientific discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection, not biological evolution, is the theoretical part of Darwin's work. PiCo (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Genetic" Evolution

What do you think about changing the title to "Genetic Evolution". The term "evolution" on its own just means gradual and directional change (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/evolution). In the context of biology, the word "evolution" is used as shorthand for "genetic evolution", but in an encyclopaedic article I wonder if we shouldn't make the distinction between genetic evolution and other forms of evolution (some of which we have articles for here on wikipedia) such as cultural evolution, social evolution, technological evolution, the evolution of language, and the evolution of mind. I'm not trying to make a point about the importance of genetic evolution, only that it wouldn't hurt to be more specific. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the "standard" name for the topic should be used, and it's pretty clear that the name is "Evolution". There are a number of other cases (which I can't think of now) where an article on a topic is given the commonly-known name, and the article starts with a referral for other usage ("This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation)". Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fair enough. We could include the term "genetic evolution" somewhere in the lede, but I've just noticed there is actually a separate article called "Genetic evolution". It doesn't actually detail a separate topic, so I'm going to suggest a merger with this one. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the only reasonable change would be to biological evolution, and I am not suggesting we do that. Andrew Colvin (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnuniq and just see no problem here. We just need a link to a disambiguation page and anyone who comes here by mistake is two clicks away from what they want. But we have never registered many complaints by readers who meant to go to another article (Stellar evolution? Cultural evolution?) and were directed here by mistake,; I think everyone who has come here was looking for just this article. So let's not worry about hypotheticals when the system is working fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think no distinction is made in the article between Micro-evolution (variance within a species-e.g. green fish to blue fish) and Macro-evolution (change from one kind into a different kind-e.g.. fish to amphibian). There also seems to be no answer to why living fossils were not replaced by superior organisms in the path of Evolution-the problem of Convergent Evolution is not addressed-see Hoatzin and Archaeopteryx, Coelecanth, Horseshoe Crab and Trilobite. Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" is claim CB902. See that page and the talk.origins macroevolution FAQ. Gabbe (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a FAQ at the top of this page. Gabbe (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Models

(First wikitalk post so don't really know things are done here...) Saw in the archives some questions about computer modeling of evolution. There is actually a growing field called Evolutionary Dynamics. It's largely headed by Dr. Martin Nowak from Harvard. It consists of models of evolution based on game theory and social networks. He's written a textbook on the subject titled "Evolutionary Dynamics" (surprising ehh?) which I have not read. My knowledge on the subject comes from a lecture he gave while visiting Hopkins. The focus of the talk was simulating the evolution of cooperation.

It basically concluded that cooperation can theoretically evolve in a population under certain circumstances (# of individuals in population, network of how they interact). It is not a stable state, meaning that once cooperation evolves, defectors gain an evolutionary advantage. However at this point, tit for tat strategies gain the advantage at which point cooperation again gains the advantage. In general, this requires individuals to be sufficiently networked. By this, I mean it is likely that person A knows something about person B (like history of actions) and that they are likely to interact in the future. Nowak mentioned how this is also a possible evolutionary pressure for social intelligence and language. It is advantageous to know someone's history of actions and language is the best way to spread this knowledge. FrostyM288 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kind of material is pertinent for the Evolutionary game theory article. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kept looking around and found an evolution of cooperation page that touches on some of this already. FrostyM288 (talk)

Population

The word and concept population is very important for this article. It is linked to population. But that article doesn't provide sufficient explanation for a stable understanding. The definition given in the opening sentence is true, but too short: collection of inter-breeding organisms of a particular species. I run into problems when trying to expand on gene flow. If the given definition of population were literally true, then gene flow would be analytically impossible. So somehow the the concepts of population and gene flow are depending on each other. Much gene flow -> same population; litle gene flow -> different populations. I feel a need for more discussion of this in Wikipedia, butfound myself unable to provide it. Can anyone enlighten me? --Ettrig (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: you want pithy definitions that perfectly encapsulate a concept, but biology disagrees. What a mess. See species for comparison. This is why effective population size was invented. Graft | talk 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of these definitions work OK with animals, stumble a bit with plants and then break down completely with microorganisms. You just have to decide what level of inaccuracy and inconvenient exceptions you can live with. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Evolutionary Theory

There really ought to be a section here addressing scientific objections to the evolutionary theory. I am not talking about objects from ID-proponents and other such religious fanatics. I mean, well-meaning scientific objections. I remember reading one problem with evolution being the intractability of finding a favourable mutation for a multi-cellular organism. The book 'Complexity: Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos' by M. Mitchell Waldrop cites the possibilities for algae being on the order of 10^300 (i.e. what is called an exponential problem in pure mathematics and computer science). Given such an enormous search space, the problem quickly becomes intractable. I believe there was another example where Huxley suggested 50-100 billion as the time required for life to evolve to the present state given random mutations. This info needs to be verified, of course, because I am merely recalling what I read when I was around 10-15 years old. I can't seem to find any information on any of this, any more. Back when I was in school this was a popular point of debate among evolutionary theorists. Now the objections seem to have died down. If there has been great progress in explaining these anomalies over the last few decades, then that is certainly wonderful news. Perhaps that should be more properly referred to and addressed as they were certainly problematic for evolutionary theorists of the late twentieth century. I know adding a section such as this will have all the crazed creationists crawling out of the woodwork, but if objections exist to a scientific theory, then as scientists (i.e. seekers of Truth), we cannot with good conscience ignore them. Perhaps there are editors out there familiar with objections to the theory who would care to discuss them. Rlinfinity (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The home for that particular argument, and many like it, is at Objections to evolution, or more specifically Hoyle's fallacy. Perhaps of more relevance here, this series examines the relationship of Darwinism and Mutationism. As an aside, nice quote on the 2nd. law . . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you've been misinformed. I know you posted that in good faith, but the reason those objections "died down" is because they were never seriously considered in the first place, for good reason. thx1138 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (the fact that animals change over time and so give rise to new species) is not a theory; the theories are about how the observed fact of evolution can be explained. PiCo (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hoyle's Fallacy was precisely the sort of thing I was referring to. The search space being enormous is explained extremely well there. In hindsight, I suppose it should have been obvious. In the field of mathematical optimization, genetic techniques (natural selection, cross over, mutation) are used, not in spite of the enormous search space, but rather, because of it. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no debate among the scientific community as to whether evolution is actually occurring, and there hasn't been any substantive debate in this vein for better than a century: the evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. Certainly, there are questions that are being addressed and debated at the present regarding the construction of phylogenetic trees, especially which algorithms and which sequences are the most effective at producing reliable and consistent results. While we could include redirects to articles addressing specific, legitimate debates concerning the present models, including a section about objections would appeal to a fringe minority (within the scientific community) that historically has not had evidence to back up its assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepia officinalis (talk • contribs) 03:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people continue to go on about the 'fact of evolution'. That was hardly the point I originally raised. It is a self-evident fact that evolution occurred. This is known to anyone with the slightest understanding of the fossil record. I referring purely to objections on the mechanism of evolution (which the 'theory of evolution' explains), and counter-arguments dispelling those objections. Even if these objections have been discredited, there need to be reasons WHY they are discredited. Simply saying they are no longer seriously considered is not a sufficiently convincing reason for a scientist, and especially not for a mathematician. It is equivalent to saying that demonstrating the verity of the heliocentric model of the solar system is an unnecessary exercise, as the geocentric model has not been considered in hundreds of years. Still, anybody who studies mechanics beyond a secondary school level sooner or later encounters, and needs to understand, the mathematical proofs for the heliocentric model -- because by almost all empirical observations made on Earth, the geocentric model seems to be the intuitively obvious one. Similarly, if there have ever been reasonable objections to the theory of evolution, these and the arguments against them need to be properly framed. At any rate, dave souza's comment above, did exactly that by linking to these pages within wikipedia, and I see that the page is also linked in the article. Thanks for that. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. What non-Christian has ever used the 2nd law as a "criticism" of evolutionary theory? Or more precisely, what biologist? Certainly there was a clash between Christians and non-Christians (or, Fundamentalist Christians and non-Fundamentatalists) when Darwin first published his theory. But this is not a debate among scientists. This is not a question of a discredited theory being replaced by a newer more robust theory - this is within the realm of the history of science. This is a question about a spurious argument that has and continues to be raised by people with a non-scientific agenda (which yes can include people who have some scientific expertise), which is something else altogether. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein is right that "if there have ever been reasonable objections to the theory of evolution", which there have been, they belong in the history of evolutionary thought article and related historical articles. A quibble – when Darwin first published his theory it met with a complex response and a whole range of views, both religious and secular, as well as a range of evolutionary theories which culminated during "the eclipse of Darwinism". There have been several theories of evolution, which have largely converged as modern evolutionary theory which is described in this article. There is continuing development and debate, for example, about the relative importance of aspects such the neutral theory of molecular evolution. As for the clash between Christians and the rise of anti-evolution, that really dates from around 1920. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have scientific criticism directed towards a fact, there must be scientific criticism already out there - there are absolutely no scientific evidence to put a dent in the fact of evolution. Religious fundamentalist who attack this topic for whatever reason tends to use old-disproven theory such as abiogenesis, slow fossil record, etc that has already been scientifically tested and proven false. There won't be a criticism section in this article, because there are no credible criticism. If you want information of morality against evolution go to this site below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

Request

I would like to include a link to "Introduction To Evolution" at http://www.vectorsite.net/taevo.html. Consider this merely a polite request, if the answer is a simple: "No, we'd rather not." -- that isn't a hardship. MrG 67.40.35.149 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link, but I believe everyone here thinks this article already has enough external links as is. See WP:EL. Gabbe (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, not a hardship. Thanks for your time and attention. MrG 67.40.35.149 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.

[2] As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

[OriginOfWhales-3] The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

[4] Dobzhansky T, Pavlovsky O (1971). "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila". Nature. 230 (5292): 289–292. doi:10.1038/230289a0. PMID 5549403.

[Hillis92-5] DM Hillis; JJ Bull; ME White; MR Badgett; IJ Molineux (1992). "Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny". Science. 255 (5044): 589–592. doi:10.1126/science.1736360. PMID 1736360.

[Crandall94-6] Crandall, K. (1994). "Intraspecific cladogram estimation: Accuracy at higher levels of divergence" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 43 (2): 222–235.

[7] Gates, Reginald Ruggles (September 1909). "The Behavior of the Chromosomes in Oenothera lata x O. gigas". Botanical Gazette. 48 (3): 179–199. doi:10.1086/329990. JSTOR 2467513.

[8] Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D. J. (2008). "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (12): 4792–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711998105. PMC 2290806. PMID 18344323.

[9] Cressey, Daniel (2009). "Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1089.

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

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

[crutch-12] Lambert, Frank (2002). "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". Journal of Chemical Education. 79: 187–192. Retrieved 15 July 2015.

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

[14] Lamb, Trevor D.; Collin, Shaun P.; Pugh, Jr, Edward N. (2007), "Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup", Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8: 960–976

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]