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

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 below, 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.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?

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

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

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

Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

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

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

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

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

Q6: Why is microevolution equated with macroevolution?

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

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

Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?

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

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

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

Q8: How could life arise by chance?

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

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

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

New FAQ in evolution as fact and theory

I spent yesterday putting together a new FAQ header in Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/FAQ. I would be very interested in hearing some critical feedback from evolutionary editors.Thompsma (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to read. A creationist looks at it and thinks, "they're lying", and ignores it. Why do some editors try to over complicate such simple concepts. If I had just a high school degree, maybe you could say "you just don't understand." I have quite an advanced degree in the biological sciences, and that FAQ made as much sense as a physicist trying to describe string theory to me. A FAQ should be quick and easy. That FAQ was written like someone intentionally making it more complicated. I hated it. But I've complained frequently about how this article has been made into a complex, impossible to understand article. Obviously, people want it almost inaccessible. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not purposefully try to make it any more complicated than need be. Put a lot of work into that in good faith, so thanks for your not so kind and unhelpful feedback. You might want to try putting in some "constructive criticism" - where I can work off the suggestions. Just saying "I hated it" is juvenile and unhelpful. The topic of evolution as fact and theory is a complex one and feel free to chime in. The FAQ was a listing and response to actual questions that have popped up in that page for the past year or so. It was researched thoroughly and I consulted with several evolutionary biologists on the topic to put it together. "That FAQ made as much sense as a physicist trying to describe string theory to me" - Well string theory is as advanced a theory as evolution, in terms of acquiring an understanding of the topic. Who better to describe string theory than a physicist, you make that sound like a bad thing. When I took physics I had a physicist explain it to me. It was difficult at first and then I studied and eventually got it. Same goes for advanced topics in evolutionary biology - except in this case I am an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist.Thompsma (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not how encyclopedias are typically written - because they are supposed to provide information that is immediately accesible to lay people. We are not trying to educate a generation of professional biologists here, just to make lay people better informed. Confusing them with superfluous details and excessive precision doesn't achieve that goal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal attack Thompsma, but whatever. It was impossible to read, so I hated it. You asked for an opinion, I gave it. Someone agreed that it was confusing. Relax my friend, if you're going to take everything so personally, you'll not last long. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Thompsma that just saying "I hate it" is juvenile and unhelpful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. – Maky ^« talk » 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except I explained my reasoning. So, I guess not so much on the juvenile and unhelpful. But I guess personal attacks are acceptable on this page. Whatever. I still think it was impossible to read, still was confusing, and still was written in a manner that was targeted for someone who may have written it rather than individuals who are genuinely interested in the topic. But again, that's just an explanation, and those of you who like personal attacks will continue to use them. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow complaints about personal attacks from you have a hollow ring to them. People tend to respond in kind, and you generally aren't. If you had limited yourself to explaining the reasoning then you would have received a different response. In any case I agree with your reasoning, if not the tone of delivery.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is more with the article itself - that it is written more like a philosophy article than a science article (and the FAQ is just a reflection of this). I know it does contain a lot of philosophy, but that doesn't mean it has to be written like a philosopher would write it. It's hard to untangle such language to pick definite statements out of it, so it's hard to make specific suggestions. However, a couple that come to mind are: start with something similar to this page's Q3, and provide a clear answer to Q5 in the first sentence (i.e. trivially no, but that it doesn't affect evolution's validity). Q4 has a similar issue to Q5 but I can't figure out what it's trying to say, so I'm not sure what suggestions I could offer for that one. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be easy to read when it was written by an editor who is no longer around. Just click on a version say from 3 years ago. See what you think. It was well written, made sense, and didn't have the confusing language that has been inserted over the past few years. Oh well. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I found the FAQ to be just fine. Admittedly, I have a degree in evolutionary biology, but I didn't have to apply what I had learned in college to understand what was being said. Evolution is attacked using semantics—a deliberate tactic. The FAQ addresses the semantics, even if it comes across as "philosophical". The article should be written as a science article, while the FAQ should address the semantics. – Maky ^« talk » 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is with the article itself. It is an odd kind of offshoot on evolutionary biology - based largely on a single article by Stephen J. Gould who stated that evolution was a fact. Of course there is always the argument that "oh, it's just a theory" - but I do not think that the purpose of an encyclopaedic article should be a place to combat creationists or other obtuse arguments. The article was written in a way a few years ago to set out and prove a point - that evolution is a fact. Unfortunately, that is not the way it is laid out in the literature. Some evolutionary biologists have claimed it to be a fact, whereas others think that is the wrong use of the word fact and claiming that evolution is a fact is a very general claim. Exactly what part of evolution is being called a fact? Facts are usually things that are manifest and quite obvious, but evolution is complex and large. The reason I put the FAQ together was to also help editors gain some bearing and to clarify that the article is not a "go to" to thwart off the local creationist to say "see, it is fact". It should be an information resource disclosing what fact is. The reason why it comes across as philosophical is because the title of the article makes that kinda necessary - Fact & Theory is about as deeply philosophical as you can get in science. I've spent the past few years reading every paper and evolutionary book where fact and theory are used to refer to evolution and it is always philosophical. Any constructive suggestions on how to simplify it otherwise would be helpful.Thompsma (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arc de Ciel - your feedback was helpful. Thanks!Thompsma (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

page biased

Offtopic: no proposals here to improve the article, as required by WP:TALK.dave souza, talk 19:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

i think this page accepts evolution as 100% fact. any edits to the page which add any suspicion are quickly removed. you would have to agree with me that virtually all edits on this page are by people who think evolution is 100% fact and they hence control the page.

it would be good if we come to an agreement that this page needs a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.236.84 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, both on your understanding of fact and that this is written by people who think that evolution is 100% fact. In fact, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Many of the people who contribute this article are scientists who do not subscribe to absolute certainty (i.e., 100% fact). This is actually an opportune time to send someone to the new Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/FAQ page - see Q4. You can read through the FAQ on fact and theory and the actual article to gain a better understanding on what fact and theory refers too. The people contributing to this article are using WP:V sources to provide an informative source on the scientific understanding of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as people find evidence contradicting evolution, we'll post it, until then, Wikipedia is under absolutely no obligation to pander to anti-science propaganda victims and know-nothing knowitalls who are dumb enough to believe the Bible is a science textbook.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably disagree with some of the language of the above post, because I've seen some fans of science who believe things that are even dumber than the Bible, but not the general idea. I haven't seen many such dumb ideas recently, admittedly, but some.

All the "evidence" against evolution I have ever seen is, really, reduced to the basics, conjecture which is seemingly based on supporting the pre-existing beliefs of individuals who don't like evolution and are basically grasping at straws to find a way to oppose it. And I think some of the editors around this page might consider me one of the dumbest people around, because I tend to support some religious ideas in general around here. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, be fair, the page is biased. Towards reality. Of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . dave souza, talk 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a perfect example of biased this can you fail to say my post is 1% correct this talk is not for discussing the bible i mentioned nothing of the sort. think about it around 80% of people who have read the entire article are evolutionists. i hate to bring god into this but the way you defend your beliefs is unreasonable the same as many creationists. enough about that. the way this article read by paragraph is like so. this is fact this is fact this is the only fact and this is fact etc. even the first line of the article. Evolution is any change across successive generations. what exactly does that mean? does it mean a child looking different frin its parent? looks in a person can be defined as any change.or does it mean biological change? do you get the just of what im saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.155.56 (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but despite the appalling grammar and (lack of) punctuation, I think I get the gist. The point is that evolution is science and has to presented as such. Contradictory material based on the religious beliefs of a minority simply does not belong. There is no way to sensibly include it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well yea religion does need to totally be excluded from this article. My main problem with this is how in religious articles for example a line from the article "god" "God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator" if i was to change it to God is the supernatural creator,it would be changed in less than a few minutes . take the start of this article. "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor" it states it as absolutely fact. Can you see the problem? They are both beliefs and should be written as such. evolution has flaws so does god, none can be proven as absolute fact and so they should not be written as such.

Now about being biased evolution is allowed to be stated as fact not belief,god is allowed to be stated as a product of the imagination and not belief. You see what i mean now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.174.80 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution has been proved to be an absolute fact as close as anything in science can be, there's more evidence to support it than any other theory in science I contend. Your opinion to the validity of the theory is irrelevant and incorrect. — raeky t 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i can understand incorrect but irrelevant? what i was trying to get at was this article needs to be re written.If evolution is absolute fact how is it i have read the entire article and still not been convinced? Maby its a little hard to understand,that can be fixed by being re written. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.174.80 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is just a very brief overview of the theory, to have a good understanding you can spend years learning and still not be able to cover everything. I'd start say with the biology courses at MIT's online courses if you go through those you'd have a better understanding. A encyclopedia's article can't give you all the knowledge of a subject, and you need education to understand some topics. I'd recommend Richard Dawkins's book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution or Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution Is True. — raeky t 20:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better lead sentence?

The current lead sentence has been agreed upon by many - I know, I was embroiled in the huge debate that developed into the current lead. However, the sentence is still kinda awkward - even though it captures the broader essence of evolutionary theory. I would like to propose an alternate (below), because there is a problem with the way that the term change is used, as Kirk J. Fitzhugh has noted: "‘Change’ is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution..."[1]. Hence:

Evolution is the gradual departure across successive generations in the constituency of the inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

This proposal has the advantage of giving the original and lasting gradual thesis of evolution (i.e., Darwinian materialism of cause-effect relations), it removes the term change (hinting on tautological, plus see Fitzhugh (2007) click here for free pdf), and it puts the emphasis on organisms in populations, which is where evolutionary research is directed.Thompsma (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or to make it read a bit better:

Evolution is the gradual departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.Thompsma (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In further support of the proposed wording, biologists frequently refer to the "genetic constituency of populations".Thompsma (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you, this is just more obscurantism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's wp:V, not obscurantism, consistent with the history of the science. Not much thought goes into conceiving that "Evolution is change", but if you are asked to think past this and call it obscurantism in your critique, it is a strange response. Obscurantism: "is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known" - ironic that this applies more aptly to your rejection.Thompsma (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your obsession with providing the most scientifically accurate and current definition of evolution prevents the average reader from having a chance at understanding this article. That is obscurantism. It is not WPV, because that definition is not by a longshot the most commonly used, and specifically it is entirely unsuited for works meant to be read by lay readers. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was inspired from a passage I read from Charles Sanders Peirce - one of the great philosophers of science - and proves that it is not current:

This Darwinian principle is plainly capable of great generalization. Wherever there are large numbers of objects, having a tendency to retain certain characters unaltered, this tendency, however, not being absolute but giving room for chance variations, then, if the amount of variation is absolutely limited in certain directions by the destruction of everything which reaches those limits, there will be a graduate tendency to change in directions of departure from them.[http://www.jstor.org/stable/27896847 Peirce (1891)

The term departure in reference to the constituency in populations is more apt and consistent with the actual evolutionary concept than change, because "Different properties among organisms cannot then be explained via any notion of change: ‘When one thing is put in the place of another, each ... undergoes a change of place, but neither is changed into the other’ (Coffey 1938: 61). Thus, if we can speak of evolution being a fact, it must be by way of some connotation other than ‘change’." (Fitzhugh, 2007) If this is a deliberate attempt to prevent the facts to prevent the full details from becoming known (as you claim), then I guess I will have to stop doing research and wipe my slate of knowledge clean to improve on my argument. Strange that I'm being critiqued from "providing the most scientifically accurate and current definition of evolution" - only in here would that be counted as a negative. Unacceptable. You have to do better than this.Thompsma (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general encyclopedia, not a graduate level evolutionary biology course. Keeping it simple so that people can understand what we write without having an advanced degree is a good thing. So no, let's keep the lead as is. Yobol (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it is not a graduate level evolutionary biology course, I'm not a newbie. I want to keep it simple and correct. There is a logical error in the current lead sentence as I have studied it for quite a long time before entering here. Change is not the correct word. My proposal is no more complex than what is already presented, which is wrong. Using the simple wrong default common response is certainly going to appear more simple to understand - because it is what everyone expects. As an educator of science, I study this kind of stuff - that is what is called the effect of the common misconception, where people default to the simple common answer.Thompsma (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again and compare:

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.

Evolution is the gradual departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.

Mine is more explicit and no more complex. Is the word contituency too hard to handle? Is that the concern? The other problem with the current lead is that it implies that the inherited characteristics are properties of the biological populations and not the organisms where they exist in reality.Thompsma (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "change" is a fundamentally incorrect word to be used in the definition of evolution and and also disagree that the substitution of the word "change" with "gradual departure in constituency" is at all simple. Yes, the word constituency is not a word I would use to define something in the first sentence, but the entire phrase and verbiage used is enough to turn me off from reading any more of the article. Let's not fix what's not broken. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree, but I can provide (have given) the literature to support my claim. It is broken, so it needs fixing.Thompsma (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. Clearly there are now two editors now who disagree, let's see if you can get a consensus to make a change from other editors. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yobol - I will do my best. I realize this will be a battle. Change might work for evolutionism - which is a much more general concept dealing with the broader philosophy things and the recognition that history does not, in fact, repeat itself - things do change (see here). However, in reference to Darwin's theory - change is not the right word in the way it is currently being applied. The current lead sentence is obscure in its meaning, implying that evolution refers to a singular thing that changes, but that is incorrect because it is a multitude of organisms within populations that are referenced in the theory. It is true (in an abstract kinda way) that populations transition from one state into another (i.e., change), but that is not what evolutionary biologists really study - except, perhaps, when modelling or projecting. When I study salamanders, I look at individual organisms and measure characteristics in body form. Evolution by means of natural selection (or some other mechanism) is a measure of departure or divergence, not change. If it was change, then we would be talking about development or the morphing of an organism into another species, the later does not occur (obviously). I think that the current rejection to my proposal (although I would certainly accept alternative proposals) has more to do with prior conceptions, which is one of the barriers that educators of evolutionary biology face when teaching on the subject matter (see here, for e.g.)Thompsma (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Mayr uses the term change appropriately: "Evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms over time." He does not say "any change" and he also emphasizes that it is the properties of organisms in the populations, where the current lead implies that it is the properties of populations having inheritable traits. I agree with George Gaylord Simpson and a host of other evolutionary biologists that populations are the primary units of evolution and change occurs within populations through the properties of organisms. However, evolution is actually a measure of departure or divergence from an ancestral state (i.e., descent with modification along the way).Thompsma (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, there are two problems with the current lead. Problem 1: It treats populations as a singular unit having the quality of traits. It is the organisms in the population that vary with the traits. I prefer the term "individuals" over "organisms", but I already fought and lost that battle months ago. Adding organisms would be a definite improvement. Problem 2 (the more difficult battle): While most evolutionary biologists and the mainstream of scientific literacy finds the pseudo-synonym between change and evolution appealing and common, it is technically not the correct term of reference. The obvious fact of common ancestry that jumps out when seeing the similarity between a fossil ancestor representing an ancestral state and the descendant species is not change, but transition or departure from one form to anther that took place (selecting and sorting) in populations. The ancestor did not change into its descendant. It is the divergence (a multi-vergence really) or statistical departure of trait distributions in populations from ancestral initial conditions to descendant states and it is also a meta-theory referring to laws, facts, and hypotheses that cover topics beyond the content of the first sentence.Thompsma (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals:

Current: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
Pa: Evolution is the gradual departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.
Pb: Evolution is change that occurs across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations.
Pc: Evolution is the divergence that occurs across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations.
Pd: Evolution is a departure in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.
Pe: Evolution is divergence in the constituency of inherited characteristics of organisms in biological populations across successive generations.

Working through this and seeing the options, I have a preference for "6. Pe". Key points: 1. drop the "any" in front of change, 2. it is organisms in populations that have the traits, make this clear, 3. change is not the best term to convey the proper meaning. I can live without the reference to gradualism to simplify matters - or perhaps it could be added, e.g., "gradual divergence" or "gradual departure".Thompsma (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pa is not good writing, so I would argue against it.
Pb is a minor tweak and covers your first concern. I doubt anyone would have big issues with it.
Pc-Pe are all trying to deal with your second concern, which as you say yourself is a more difficult battle. I think all of them are pretty un-readable, and more to the point I think your second concern is a difficult one to cover. If I understand you correctly you want to distinguish change during the life of one individual, from change in the typical inherited characteristics which are spread throughout a population. Is this really necessary though? Will people really be confusing these two issues? In any case, any attempt to clarify which makes the lead harder to understand will be a failure obviously. Just an idea but what about:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pf: Evolution in biology is change, over successive generations, in the typical range of inherited characteristics, found amongst the members of particular biological populations.

Hi Andrew - thanks for your response. I agree that Pa was not well written. The point about change is perhaps even a bit deeper. First, there is the broader problem that the dialectical evolutionary biologists (and there are and has been quite a few of them to take notice, e.g., Gould, Lewontin) would cringe at the definition given, as though evolution were nothing more than the endless shuffling of traits. Second, there is the problem of defining or circumscribing a population with exactitude and then giving it a state to change by, from one state to another. It is an abstract thing to conceptualize and not really what evolutionary biologists study nor is it what happens in reality. The way an organism develops through its life is change - from one state to another there is a thread of continuity, but a population is not a thing that can be treated in this way, many have argued that species can (but no need to go into that debate). It is individuals in populations that change and to suggest that populations change gives the wrong idea about evolution. Evolution works in dimensions of space and time - populations, meta-populations, demes, or any other kind of unit other than an organism, does not in itself undergo change. If a species range is spreading and assembles phenotypes through space rather than time, where and what population is doing the change? Plus, stating that the past, present, and future differ from one another is not in itself sufficient to define the concept of biological evolution nor does it capture the theory entailed in natural selection nor any other evolutionary theory. Does it really matter? I do not know, but there is a definite problem with the way the current lead refers to populations rather than organisms. Perhaps it would be better to think of evolution as a theory that refers to facts:

Pg: Evolution in biology refers to change, over successive generations, in the inheritable characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

This gets us out of the mess of saying what evolution is and puts the emphasis on what it refers to, which is what theories do. It also gets out of the quagmire of having to debate one group of famous evolutionary biologists who see evolution in the dialectical way versus those who view it in way it is currently defined, because both groups would agree that evolution refers to the things described - it is not an exclusive definition. I am not fond of the way you use the words "found" or "particular" in your proposal. Should it be inherited, inheritable, or heritable?Thompsma (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Thompsma's point-change isn't refering to just any change but specifically heritable changes (change has no context so a reader might assume an artic fox changing hair color coats with seasons is evolution or a single mutation in one individual is evolution). Perhaps we should say what it does and what it is first and then expand. "Evolution describes how all life is united by common descent and by modification of heritable traits". Then be more specific as to what all this means:what is being modified, now you have a modification so what-what has to happen with the trait, etc. Describe that a heritable traits are emergent properties of genes and memes. I like examples too so an example of shifts in gene alleles in Stickleback fish or how memes function in evolution would be a great addition. Just a suggestion. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GetAgrippa - The problem with your proposal is that evolution does not describe things, evolutionary biologists do. This critique could be launched against my proposal, but evolution is a theory (a network of meta-theory really). Theories refer to facts, observations, phenomena, or effects and specific in this instance, evolutionary theories refer to these things in biology. I would not include memes in this article on biological evolution, perhaps a brief note on a sub-section on cultural evolution - even though I realize many people would not support that idea. Like Richard Lewontin I agree that there is a problem with "cultural evolution" and I also think Stephen Pinker gives the more productive conceptualization to refer to a cognitive niche instead of cultural evolution. It should not be at all surprising to find problems when taking a theory developed for biological phenomena and then dropping it onto a whole other domain that it was not originally designed to address. It took Darwin countless hours to develop the theory in reference to material phenomena and it was designed with that intent in mind. However, the concept of cultural evolution has been explored a great deal in the literature with some evolutionary biologists seeing more than an analogy and this is certainly something that could be mentioned in a paragraph. First, a paragraph on phylogenetics is more desperately needed and some day - perhaps when I get ecology up to FA status - I will bite into that project. In the meantime, you are correct that the current lead could be interpreted exactly as you have indicated - a fox changing hair color coats with seasons - falls exactly under the definition given for evolution: "any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations." Coat color is an inheritable, is changes with seasons across successive generations, and it occurs in biological populations - yet it is not evolution.Thompsma (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee didn't mean to open a can of worms with the memes but at least I see your point with problem with "change". If change isn't in the proper context it is misleading. My hopes is you will get phylogenetics in the article too. I'm still fond of examples of evolution though and perhaps I should just write an offshoot article with great examples and models of evolution in bacteria, fungi, protist, plants, and all sorts of animals. There is a rich literature of examples that the novice reader would find interesting like the recent find with fence lizards and fire ants. I think many naive readers believe evolution is only a theory-which often translates to them as a bunch of meaningless equations or ideas and not something real and measureable as shifts in gene alleles in populations of stickleback fish and changes in traits. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't open a can of worms with me, but I suspect that the idea would have been knocked down quickly. The problem with memes is that they didn't really survive as well as their name suggests they should have. Suprisingly, genes did - even though the theory of the gene has its own troubled history as an abstraction of reality.[2]Thompsma (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that seasonal coat color change is not within the definition. The inherited characteristic (i.e., a tendency to be brown in summer and white in winter) is not changing from one generation to the next. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you read it. In one generation the coat colour changes. In the next generation the coat color changes. It is changing from one generation to the next. The causal reason for the change is not evolutionary divergence, but rather it is due to ontological / physiological / seasonal factors.Thompsma (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent proposal covers this, because evolution can refer to coat colour change and offer up an explanation. Perhaps the colour change is an adaptation, camoflauge, thermal advantages, and so on...evolutionary theories can refer to the change. However, the change itself may not be evolutionary - descent, with modification.Thompsma (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cycle of change is still shorter than fox lifespan; I think your argument would require fox lifespan to be shorter than one year. Also, since breeding is in the spring, they always start off brown (though I think the current definition wouldn't require that to be the case). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem relevant to the argument at all. The literal translation of the current definition states: "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations." - The ontological developmental change in a fox, coat colour, growth, or whatever, qualifies as any change. They are inheritable characteristics responding to and at the same time modifying the environment - norm of reaction. This is not evolution, but evolutionary theory refers to this kind of stuff. Evolutionary hypotheses, such as evolutionary trees, refer to characters that vary and survive in the divergence of a lineage as a result of differential fitness. The current lead is incorrect.Thompsma (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. Developmental change (etc) is not change across successive generations; it is change within a single generation. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break and call for opinion

Given that no one raised any major objection to the direction the conversation took in recent days, maybe we should call for opinions on this proposal:

CURRENT: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
PROPOSED: Evolution in biology refers to change, over successive generations, in the inheritable characteristics of organisms in biological populations.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am ok with either one. Nevertheless, I still prefer the current one, only because it is more concise. If it were me, I would reorder the present lede statement and omit the word "any" as follows:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations."

Regards. danielkueh (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also OK with either, with only a very slight preference for the current on the grounds of being more concise.Joannamasel (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current one is better, and the proposal provides no new information. What's the point? Graft | talk 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Evolution, in biology, refers to the modification of heritable traits of organisms within populations over successive generations". It is descent with "modification". Glad to hear from you Graft-long time. Regards, GetAgrippa (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Less wordy is better, imho, so I lean towards the current phrasing. — raeky t 23:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if simple is the strategy then : "Evolution is the modification of heritable traits within populations through generations". This addresses it isn't just any change but the modification of an ancestral trait to a new derived trait, "within" populations refers to individuals within the population with new derived traits gaining success within the population, and no need to put successive because generations implies succession. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that definition, any first year biology student is taught that Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a breeding population's gene pool, or something very similar to that, and i concede simplifying it to more public friendly terms to get rid of "allele frequency" and "breeding population" and "gene pool" since they're probably not something an average Joe would know, but I don't think "modification of heritable traits" is accurate to the standard most common definition of evolution. What we have now is closest, but not entirely accurate, but close enough for me to be ok with. The further you get away from "Changes in allele frequency in a breeding population" the more I have a problem with it. — raeky t 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well descent with modification and then Dobzhansky's shift in gene alleles and the gene-centric pop genetics definition are popular but that implies that only shifts in gene alleles are responsbile for evolution-wwhich the change can be in noncoding regions and not a shift in gene alleles, it can be epigenetic, and it ignores large genomic duplications and chromosomal differences, and its biased towards diploid sexually reproducing populations and ignores haploid organisms or asexual organisms. GetAgrippa (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the mechanisms of evolution are complex, but the basic definition taught initially is "change in allele frequency of a breeding population." I think the opening sentence should be basic and as little wording as possible the later details can be explained in the body. Unless there is sources showing that top universities introduce evolution to freshmen as a different definition then that, then I think it would be best to stick with the simple definition for the opening sentence. There are of course other things than coding alleles in variation, but the MAJORITY of an organisms traits are from coding alleles, and then transcription factors in the embryo that it gets from the parents, but the majority is from alleles. Unless there is some new evidence that shows that the vast majority of evolutionary change isn't allele frequency then I would be in favor of straying away from the definition I gave, otherwise we should try to be as close as possible for the opening sentence. — raeky t 03:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current statement as well, although I agree with Daniel that placing "across successive generations" at the end makes it more readable. I'm undecided about the use of "any;" I'm not yet convinced that it's a mistake, but I think perhaps it is not the best encyclopedic style. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight-the posit is all evolution can be explained by shifts in gene alleles through successive generations? So I guess epistasis and gene interactions and networks have nothing to do with it? And then I guess that vast majority of most genomes (what use to called junk DNA)has nothing to do with development and evolution-it is all in gene alleles so mutations anywhere else have nothing to do with it? Is that what is proposed? GetAgrippa (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? Evolution is the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population. Other factors are at play too, but the MAJORITY of the change is the result of allele frequency changes within the population. Are you proposing that we somehow try to synthesis some convoluted all-encompassing definition that has elements of every mechanism of evolutionary change into one mega-definition of evolution for our opening sentence? All I said is, unless proven otherwise that major universities are teaching a different basic definition of evolution for their freshmen biology majors then we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. I would say any definition would need reliable sources and we shouldn't synthesize our own. — raeky t 12:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting reinventing the wheel that would be original research but just put the correct wheels on! There are all kinds of evolutionary biologist some of which are population geneticist but seems undue weight with just a pop geneticist perspective. The human genome has many genes some with no alleles and some with hundreds of alleles-polymorphisms in populations can be both genetic and environmental. I think shifts in gene alleles is too restrictive and it is the trait and phenotype that interested both Darwin and Mendel. Further comparing humans and chimps it isn't so much gene alleles that makes us different but we have one less chromosome and various transpositions and inversions that are different too-shifts in gene alleles didn't produce these differences. Duplication events of genes, or chromosomes isn't a gene allele shift phenomena. Hybridization can give rise to new species and it is gene flow not gene allele shifts responsible for the new species. In the past I too supported the shifts in gene alleles but now I believe it is too restrictive. The differences in freshwater and saltwater stickleback fish is from mutations in enhancers regulating the gene not any change in the gene itself or alleles (Pitx-1 gene is the same in both just regulated differently). GetAgrippa (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, next suggestion

OK then, based on the responses, I think we need to make a new request for opinions about whether DK's tweak is acceptable to everyone?

CURRENT: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
PROPOSED: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.

I think it is a simple and uncontroversial improvement. Do others agree? It seems so from opinions above already registered. But I would like to raise a secondary question which is why the "in biology" was ever removed from this sentence. It used to be there. Is it just obvious that evolution is by default the biological meaning? I personally do not think so, and I do not recall this point ever having been widely agreed. I seem to recall that the change slipped through with some other changes? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed is probably better in this instance, it's just geting rid of "any" and reordering it to read better. I think it obvious that this page is about biological evolution, and not some other use of it. We don't need to play into the creationist hand by their assertion that there is crazy things like "chemical evolution" "cosmological evolution" and all the other "types" of evolution that Kent Hovind brings up in his lectures (now his son Eric does). Do university biology textbooks introduce evolution as biological evolution in their opening remarks? It seems redundant and obvious how it's used here for biology. — raeky t 12:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I agree that the proposed sentence as you stated it above is grammatically simpler for those who read English as a second language, and it is important to remember those readers. Looking back to the previous discussion, I could see including the word "gradual" in the interest of clarity and accuracy, but either way I think this proposal is an improvement. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the "biological populations" why not just populations? It seems also redundant to state biological here as well.. — raeky t 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSED#2: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.

Raeky stated: "Evolution is the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population. Other factors are at play too, but the MAJORITY of the change is the result of allele frequency changes within the population." - Not only are other factors at play, but a great many evolutionary biologists would and have voiced their disagreement on what has been called the "standard genetic definition" of evolution. Evolution is not the result of changes in allele frequency in a breeding population - that is just bookkeeping as Stephen J. Gould (and many others) have stated repeatedly. Ernst Mayr, Richard Lewontin, Niles Eldredge, and many others have repeatedly voiced their discontent with that kind of definition. None of them deny that allele frequencies change in populations, but they would all argue that this kind of definition is inadequate to provide a causal understanding of evolution. I oppose the latest proposals, because they are indadequate. I am not suggesting that we have a definition that covers cosmic evolution, nor am I even taking the epigenetic stance of GetGrippa, although I am sympathetic to those issues in evolution. I can provide enough literature and reason to demonstrate that "Evolution is not the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations." - This kind of thing happens to organisms in populations. It is not a correct definition of evolution. Once again, populations do not have inheritable traits - organisms (or individuals) do. Evolutionary theory provides a causal mechanism explaining varieties that can be observed and patterns of divergence that can be tested; causal mechanisms involve selection and sorting. Selection and sorting act on the inheritable characterstics of populations across successive generations, but change is insufficient to cover the concept of divergence, speciation, and laws of emergence that have been covered extensively in evolutionary theory. This is why my proposal offers a solution to this problem. I might accept:

"Evolution refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations."Thompsma (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theres not much difference between what you just proposed and I did, instead of is you have refers, that is probably ok, but this opening sentence isn't the whole article theres plenty of space to discuss exceptions and divergence of opinions on the definition. You add the word organisms, which I think is redundant since population specifically refers to populations of organisms and evolution doesn't necessarily have to refer to just biologically alive DNA/RNA based organisms that we traditionally think of... so long as it can pass on variable material that can confer advantage and it reproduces it can evolve, doesn't have to be what we traditionally think of as alive. Computer algorithms can be written to evolve clocks for example, or very primitive pre-life isn't what you'd consider an organism but it would evolve without mechanisms we traditionally think of as being involved. So I would make the case that the word organism should be removed in favor of just a population. The first paragraph doesn't need to be all-encompassing definition of every facet of evolutionary theory, it should be very understandable by a lay-person and therefore needs to be simple. Further sentences would expound on the concepts of non-allele variation I would think. — raeky t 19:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference in stating what evolution is versus what the term refers to. It may be small in terms of # of words, but meaning is critically important here. The word organism is not redundant, because a population is not an organism and evolutionary biologists study organisms. Populations are abstractions and they do not have traits - this was already discussed above and the things changing are the ancestral-descendant sequences of organisms (not populations, although one could make that argument - this is not the place to extend such abstractions of the theory). I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to "what we traditionally think of as alive," plus this is an article on biological evolution, not evolutionism, which would include computer programs.Thompsma (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Once again, populations do not have inheritable traits - organisms (or individuals) do." Well said! Semantics is very important in science so we need to be accurate. I wonder if "in populations" is sufficient or perhaps "within and across populations (coevolution)" is more descriptive? I know, Iknow keep it simple. Hmmmmm. Evolution is the change in heritable traits of populations over succesive generations is confusing. Within a sexual reproducing population, every generation will always exhibit some change because sexual recombination will create new combinations of alleles and so changes in traits is inevitable, however evolution doesn't take place till a trait becomes more prominent in a population because of selection or drift. Evolution acts on the variation of traits within a pop. such one may become more successful. Fruit flies have evolved resistance to synthetic pesticides because of a 35K old transposon but the evolution didn't take place till the last 100 years when natural selection made the trait more prominent. Evolution is the shift in traits of individuals in a population in successive generations. The fact biological organisms have changing traits isn't evolution it is the change in the frequency of a trait is evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am making the claim that no person - even Gould (my personal hero) could derive a lead sentence that would define evolution. However, we can create a lead sentence that can define what the theory of evolution refers to and that sentence could be something that gives a very general overview on the topic.Thompsma (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma I couldn't agree more. I believe every reader wants to change the lead sentence-I know I did. I still agree with Thompsma about "change" because it implies the trait changes rather than the preponderance of the trait. I think: "Evolution is the shift in heritable traits of organisms in populations through successive generations" is getting closer. GetAgrippa (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the sentence stands it can be rephrased to: Evolution is any change in a populations inheritable traits through successive generations. With the caveat that populations consist of individual organisms is implied or understood. That way it is clear it is the population that is changing and not the trait. At present it reads Evolution is any change of inheritable traits so the emphasis is on traits and implies the traits are somehow changing, which as Thompsma and a population geneticist would tell you it is the organisms within a population through successive generations that are changing traits (and sometimes shifting the frequency of allele genotypes within the population too). Good gooly that reads like crap too. You really have to indicate individuals within a population. Evolution is any change in organsims of a population inheritable traits through successive generations. Gee I think I have a brain hemorrhoid. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang wrong freakin' sentence. It is presently:Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Gee I guess it is Ok except maybe changing the end to "charcteristics of organisms in populations". I do have a brain hemorrhoid-it's official. A long list of expletives would make me feel better. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Part of the problem is the ongoing dialogue about evolution as fact and theory. By saying evolution is something, it is being treated as a fact and I do not understand evolution in these terms. Evolution offers the best explanation of the body of facts, but it is not in itself a fact no matter how true it may be. A fact is an object or a process, but a true factual proposition is not a fact no matter how much you confirm, corroborate, or even refute a hypothesis or theory. It is a violation of the philosophy of science to claim that theories can transmute into fact. Natural selection is a metatheory, evolution is part of the metatheory. Organisms are facts, and their characteristics are facts. So to say that "Evolution is something" is treating it as though it is a fact, when it is really a theory. It is far more useful to understand and to present evolution as a theory. What evolutionary biologist has not treated evolution as a theory? Some have called it a fact, some have not, all have called it a theory. Theories refer to things, cause effect relations. When Ernst Mayr wrote his book on what evolution is, he wrote about the theory. Trying to summarize evolution as a fact that is "change in a populations inheritable traits through successive generations" is a confirmation of the obvious, but it hardly offers an explanation nor a definition of evolution from the conception of an entangled bank.

The current lead also refers abstractly to a single population as though you can turn evolution into some kind of minimizing principle, where the interactive stuff becomes secondary. Once you understand this minimizing principle, all the rest will follow. I don't buy into this idea. It is surprising to me that so many want to argue in favor of this kind of abstract definition that is contrary to the way that Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, Elisabeth Lloyd, Niles Eldredge, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, Sewall Wright, and a long list of scientific actors (including Darwin) wrote about the topic. These scientists gave us a very large part of the modern understanding of evolution and it gets thwarted in the first sentence? It would be far easier to argue that natural selection is an epistemilogical theory and an ontological fact. It is presented epistemilogically as a law of theory, a three part syllogism. It is also a process that is a factual part of the world, because variations, inheritability, and differential survival of organisms are facts, effects, and phenomena that occur in populations, that have been observed in nature, and experimentally realized by means of artificial selection. Natural selection is not evolution, but it is a means to it. Hence, I stand by my most recent proposal, re-posted here using an underlined elaboration on the concept:

"Evolution by means of natural selection is the theory that refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations."

The underlined part can, of course, be removed. I will continue to read counter-proposals, but restate the claim that the current state of the lead sentence is presenting the reader a factual error about evolution. The cause being described by the actual theory of evolution is the origin of varieties, including genes, organisms, species, traits, or "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwin's original thesis kinda laid out the theory for us - we should use it.Thompsma (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments.

As you know, I don't agree with your definition of the word "fact," but I will save it for when I start editing "Evolution as fact and theory." :-)

When I read "the inherited characteristics of biological populations," I interpret "the sum of all characteristics within that population and the associated frequencies." I imagine this was the intended sense - the word "of" is interpreted as the word "within." That being said, I wouldn't object to a change to "within;" I'm undecided on "of organisms in populations" mainly on the basis of concision. (Though if it were used I would recommend "of 'the' organisms in populations" for clarity.)

I don't think there is a semantic difference between "is" and "refers to." Every word in every language "refers to" some concept; I don't think "is" necessarily implies that it is a singular thing that is referred to. E.g. if I say "An apple is a fruit produced by the Malus domestica tree..." I don't think I'm implying that all apples are identical. I could equivalently say " "Apple" [with an extra set of quotation marks] refers to a fruit produced by..." I am adding an extra semantic layer, i.e. I am talking about "apples" instead of apples, i.e. the word rather than the concept, but I don't think this is necessary for accuracy. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to your insight on fact. To be clear, it is not my definition - but a definition that I have inherited from literature that I've cited (you know where, e.g., see page 13). The word "is: verb - 3rd person singular present indicative of be."[3] Not only does it imply that that it is a singular thing, the definition states is is singular and we know evolution is not. And apples and evolution are not the same thing, so the metaphor is too weak to comment on. Although, I am a fan of your work and feedback Arc. "When I read "the inherited characteristics of biological populations," I interpret "the sum of all characteristics within that population and the associated frequencies." - You shouldn't interpret it as the sum, but as the multiplication of or division of, because that will give you a new sort of quantity. Combine them, but don't add them. When you do this you have a very different conception of evolution, simple summation is part of the problem here. Richard Dawkin's wrote:

"“What is the entity about which you may say that an adaptation is good for it?” Is it for the good of the group, the individual, the gene, life as a whole, or what? My own answer to the question—the gene—is not the answer Ernst Mayr would give—the organism."^: 48

Dawkins (and others of the genetic essentialism camp) refer to the gene, Darwin, Mayr, (and many others of the dialectic interactor camp) refer to the organism. In last years debate on the lead we settled on traits rather than genes. Organisms have traits and they also have genes. Genes are theoretical entities - sequences of information as Dawkins defines them - organisms are not. Like Lewontin, Gould, and Sewall Wright, I have always found Dawkins' genetic essentialist conception to be a very weak scientific argument, but I'm not here to argue that point. The point I want to focus on is organisms, which were so important to the populationist thinking of Darwin's theory, which undermined the conceptual idea of species stability. I will re-quote the Mayr definition that brings organisms and populations together: "Evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms over time. Let's translate that (gradually) to our definition: "Evolution is change in the inheritable characteristics of populations of organisms over time." The current form: "Evolution is any change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." - My proposal: "Evolution refers to the change across successive generations in the inheritable characteristics of populations of organisms over successive generations." It is true that Ernst Mayr says that "Evolution is...", but I think it is an odd thing to contrive something so plural into a singular. A more inclusive approach - a consensus if you will - of a definition that brackets Gould to Dawkin's is to say that Evolution is a theory that refers to different kinds of change, sometimes it also refers to stability (i.e., preservation), because that is an important part of the theory as well.Thompsma (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the word is means: "3rd person singular present indicative of be", then it is pointing out the state "to be". Editors want to define evolution as something that changes, yet at the same time define that evolution is something in some kind of state ("to be"). But if it means change, then it must change from one state to another in order to be what it is. It must be a process of changing states, to be in one state and then in another state, character states perhaps? Can all characters and states be treated the same, so they can be summed? If one character increases metabolic rate, while another improves on the beauty of an individual, do we sum these states into a singular definition of what evolution is - changing character states across successive generations? Or does evolution refer to character states, indicative of them, to integrate the science of what is evolving or has evolved?Thompsma (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments. :-)

-The word "is" is grammatically singular. (Perhaps I could have chosen a better example.) Instead of saying "An apple is," you could say "Humanity is," but this doesn't mean that humanity is a singular thing. It takes the singular "is" because as the English language developed people grouped humans into a single category represented by a singular word: e.g. instead of "Humanity is," you might say "All humans are," but the only difference is grammatical. Further examples would be "Science is," "The Universe is," "Epistemology is," and so forth.

-Unless Mayr has specifically discussed the word "is" elsewhere, I think the quote implies that he thinks the use of the word is valid. :-)

-Yes, when I said "sum" I meant to use the word in the sense "a general accounting for," i.e. the totality including the interactions and so forth (although of course any change can still be fully described by listing all the relevant individual changes). If we were to focus on a single gene I would simply interpret "any change in the relative frequencies of the forms of the genes [i.e. alleles] found within that population." But it seems to me that "biological populations" and "populations of organisms" are if not equivalent, very nearly so. Again, I would prefer the first on the basis of concision but not for any other reason.

-For your last comment, evolution does refer to a process, but analogous to above that doesn't mean it has to be grammatically plural. Weather events are also processes that pass through many intermediate states but we still say e.g. "A hurricane is." (And if you state that the word "is" is incorrect then you must state that the word "are" is correct.) Unless I am misunderstanding you?

-Did I miss anything? It would be great if you could try and increase your concision before posting. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem with biology is there are always exceptions to the rule so we have to be general but also inclusive-find a compromise. I apprecite the conciseness of Thompsma's proposal but perhaps "Evolution refers to the change (or "shift" as a nod to shifts in alleles and emphasize that traits are changing in frequencies and not a trait changing) in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations." It is real short :Evolution "describes" maybe rather than refers as a nod to theory aspect. Thus: "Evolution describes the shift in inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations". Maybe "change" is better, but describes maybe better than refer. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma your last statements really got me pondering. Recently you've probably read about the study of fence lizards interacting with invasive fire ants such that in areas with high pop of ants the lizards maintain a juvenile behavior of twitching and running rather than playing possum' and getting consumed in minutes as most-apparently their limbs are significantly longer morphologically too. This was reported as evolution in action , and I have no idea if any genetic studies have been performed, but it really raises questions related to some of your points. Telling this story isn't just examining lizard morphology but their behaviors and interactions with other species too. What they are observing are differences in character traits and not genetic differences, which I really have my doubts there really is any at this stage. GetAgrippa (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GetAgrippa, I think you're onto something with the idea of replacing change with shift, because you're right, it's not the trait that is changing, but a shift in the frequency with which the trait occurs in the population. I think it also important to note that while it is the organisms that individually inherit and express these traits, the change is an aggregate shift in traits among the population. Sadly, there are still a lot of people out there who think of evolution as a theory that says monkeys changed into humans. The lead sentence might be the better off for indicating a "shift" rather than a "change" and should focus more on the population than the organism. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like this?

"Evolution is a shift, over successive generations, in the inherited traits of organisms among a given population."

Or replace "is" with "refers to", I don't care about that. Divergence between populations isn't evolution, it's just evidence of the evolution that has occurred within the diverging populations, so I think "organisms among a given population" covers it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shift is not a word I am particularly comfortable with:

to put (something) aside and replace it by another or others; change or exchange: to shift friends; to shift ideas.
to transfer from one place, position, person, etc., to another: to shift the blame onto someone else.[4]

The key point is that evolution (as theory) provides explanations of the differences between organisms. There is a multi-verse of explanations (natural selection, red queen, genetic drift, founder effect, vicariance, constructal law of organization, Hardy-Weinberg, assembling phenotypes in space, norm-of-reaction, Baldwin effect, niche construction, monophyly, paraphyly, homology, homoplasy, and so on...). To say that there is a shift would imply that there was a discontinuity and if it is just a transfer, then there was no divergence. GetGrippa - you are referring to the genes as followers versus leaders debate, starting with Mark Baldwin's landmark paper - a great read if you're into the history of this stuff. The lead sentence needs to emphasize that it is inheritable traits in organisms that maintain the line of continuity from one generation to the next and it is in populations where selection and sorting occurs. If you want to maintain that evolution is something then:

Evolution is a natural process where inheritable traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across a species range and over time.

This way is refers to a process. The other problem with the current lead is that it refers to evolution over time only, but there is [spatial evolution] to consider as well.Thompsma (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the strategy was just to reach some kind of compromise (between the editors arguing shifts in gene alleles,etc.) but I have no illusions any choice will either make readers happy nor likely stay the same. A little irony the evolution lead sentence tends to evolve. Cheers,GetAgrippa (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary (American Heritage, 4th ed.) includes a few other definitions of "shift", including a change in direction (as a shift in the wind), and I think several of these are as appropriate as any other word, but the AHD also defines evolve as "to develop or achieve gradually," so it occurred to me that if not everyone is satisfied with either "change" or "shift", maybe "development" would be an option. Thus,

"Evolution is the development of inherited traits of organisms among a given population over successive generations."

Thoughts? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the dictionary def on shift, I was thinking of researching the word shift further, but my dictionaries are packed away. However, I felt comfortable rejecting shift for other reasons that were apparent. It is not the term that is used in evolutionary literature, whereas many evolutionary biologists have referred to sorting (e.g., random genetic drift) and selection (i.e., natural selection). I have heard of niche shift, climatic shift, and of a species shifting in range, but cannot recall reading much about a genetic shift, or an evolutionary shift unless it is referring to something obscure or abrupt. It is not the appropriate term. Evolutionary biologists refer to divergence, as in species or genetic divergence. This is not a case of the lead sentence evolving, it is about correcting a fundamental error that has lodged itself into the very start of this featured article and I would like to see the error corrected.

Wilhelm_meis' next proposal on development is a definite oppose and it does not make sense. I reads like you are just throwing words in that you like, without understanding the conceptual meaning behind them; not to be offensive, but that is what it seems like. Development has a very specific meaning in evolutionary theory, such as it is used in ontogeny or the semaphorant hypotheses. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny is an important dictum of evolutionary theory. We can go with inherited, and a few other tweaks:

Proposal: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations and this causes divergence across generations and throughout a species geographic range.

I lilke the divergence idea (cause it includes HGT and hybridization). Perhaps rather than process call it a phenomena: Evolution is a natural phenomena where inherited traits of ogranisms are selected and sorted in populations causing the divergence across successive generations. Shorten it a bit. Call it a phenomena and refer to the processes???GetAgrippa (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divergence is general enough to refer to both genetic and species divergence. The concept of "selection and sorting" (and here, and even here) is used widely in evolutionary literature, among genetic essentialists and hierarchical evolutionists alike.Thompsma (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second part to my proposal is a bit clumsy, how about:

Proposal2: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across successive generations and in a species geographic range.

The terms "causes divergence" has been used with regularity, I think it is useful to adapt bits of phrases and conceptions used by publishing evolutionary biologists to offer a good representation of the theory.Thompsma (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is obviously offensive, and I think you knew that. You don't seem to be very interested in collaboration, so just write whatever you want. I have other fish to fry. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intent to be offensive, just pointed out what seemed obvious in all honesty. I've had professional editors say far worse critiques in my manuscript proposals. It goes with the territory and it also helps to make me think a bit deeper about what I am trying to say when a sharp critique is deserved. Your proposal made no sense, suggesting that evolution is development when clearly it is not. Collaborate, but do a bit of research in your proposals for credibility - evolution is not an opinion, it is a science.Thompsma (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GetAgrippa - I have not yet got around to incorporating text on evolutionary phenomena into the evolution as fact and theory article, but have done the research on this. Evolution is not a phenomena, so that idea will not work (see here for an explanation of phenomena). My only concern with divergence is that it does not cover the branching process. Evolution includes anagenesis(divergence) and cladogenesis(splitting). Hence:

Proposal3: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species over successive generations and biogeographically.Thompsma (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update comment. I think some of the proposals now being discussed are very awkward English and I am not convinced by the logical "necessity" of the added complications. Of course it is up to more people than just me but I just wanted to note some doubts from one person about whether this direction is going to lead anything that will get a consensus. As a second point though, it seems from the above discussion, before it went in other directions, that some non-controversial simplification of the existing sentence is possible and I will try making the appropriate edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is awkward about the latest proposal Andrew? However, I am not necessarily the best judge of my own writing. If you could be more specific on the problem with the proposal that would be more helpful. Just saying that it is "very awkward English" is not saying very much. I would like to see some guidance in your critique. For example, you could state that there is a split infinitive in the sentence if that is the kind of grammatical problem you can identify. Specific and direct information is useful. The current lead paragraph is very awkward indeed (grammatically and logically), because evolution is not the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations as it claims. It would be more precise to state that evolution is the replacement of inherited characteristics in biological populations. The grammar is awkward because of the use of "the" definite article in front of change. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics..." Why is this not written in the more general form of the indefinite article? "Evolution is a change..." or "Evolution is change in the inherited characteristics..." Hence, the grammar of the current lead sentence is awkward. Moving onto the logic of it: "In Darwinian theory, evolutionary change is the product of sorting (differential birth and death among varying organisms within a population). Sorting is a simple description of differential representation; it contains, in itself, no statement about causes." Note: evolutionary change contains no statement about causes. Causes are important and as I have stated previously: "‘Change’ is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution, but rather explanations of the differences between organisms." Hence, I provide citable links to three notable evolutionary biologists making two claims: 1) that evolutionary change makes no statement about causes, and 2) that evolutionary change is not the quality of interest. Yet, the first sentence in this article wants to make the claim that "Evolution is change..."

Moreover, the use of the definite article "the" in front of change implies falsely that there is some very specific kind of change that is evolution. What kind of change? "Change in the inherited characteristics..." It would almost make better sense to write: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of the biological populations...". Hopefully you can see the grammatical problem with the abuse of the definite article. The current lead sentence is vague and factually incorrect, because it is really the replacement of inherited characteristics that causes evolution not the change in the inherited characteristics. Evolutionary biologists state that: "Biological evolution consists of two processes: anagenesis (or phyletic evolution) and cladogenesis (i.e., splitting). My proposal covers both anagenesis and cladogenesis, where the current lead does not. Obviously, the evolutionary process involves some kind of selection process (i.e., natural selection) and there is also a sorting (i.e., non-causal drift) that occurs and my proposal addresses this. The second sentence in the current lead is an even greater disaster in meaning and in grammatical structure. Likewise, I do see a grammatical error in the second sentence of my proposal where I should have used "or" instead of "and", hence:

Proposal4: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species biogeographically or over successive generations.Thompsma (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

First, a quick summary of the more simple proposals so far:

RECENT: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.
SIMPLIFICATION: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations across successive generations.
Raeky modification:Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.
My modification: Evolution in biology is the change in the inherited characteristics of populations across successive generations.

And here is the series of proposals from the discussion of GetAgrippa and Thompsma:

Thompsma compromise reaction to Raeky: Evolution refers to change in the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations across successive generations.
Milliam Meis proposal: Evolution is a shift, over successive generations, in the inherited traits of organisms among a given population.
Thompsma reaction: Evolution is a natural process where inheritable traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across a species range and over time.
William Meis reaction: Evolution is the development of inherited traits of organisms among a given population over successive generations.
Proposal: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations and this causes divergence across generations and throughout a species geographic range.
Proposal2: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations, which causes divergence across successive generations and in a species geographic range.
Proposal3: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species over successive generations and biogeographically.
Proposal4: Evolution is a natural process where inherited traits of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and the formation of new species biogeographically or over successive generations.

Now here are my comments on why I do not prefer the evolution, so to speak, represented in the latter discussion.

1. Firstly, I believe that basically all terms in the first sentence should be ones which do not need long discussion or special study in order to understand in one clear way for a reasonably well educated English speaker. Consider whether "natural process" and "sorted and selected" meet this criteria. If they do, then they can be replaced with simpler terms. If they don't then it is not clear what they are supposed to mean. The style can sometimes work in lectures: you start with a technical sentence and then you go through each of the technical terms. But it does not suit the opening line of a Wikipedia article, partly because different parts of the article are written by different people at different times. We need a very modular way of writing.

2. Secondly I think that the push to try to solve supposed logical problems is over-stretched. I see no reason to say that this Wikipedia article is about "the term" evolution, and not about evolution as such. I see no reason to specify that characteristics inherited within biological populations are inherited by the individuals within those populations. I see no reason to replace characteristics with traits. And so on.

3. Just in general, these proposals are demonstrably going to get longer and longer, and try to do more and more. They are trying to do to much in one sentence. This is a classic problem on Wikipedia: over-worked openings, which try to fit everything at the start of an article. If we want to modify the lead as a whole or the article as a whole, then we should discuss those wholes, and not try to work only on the opening sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, simple is good, and we don't want to get overly technical in the opening sentence. We have the whole rest of the article to explain things in further detail, but most of this article's readers are not geneticists (and English is a second language for many of en.Wiki's readers), and we don't want to lose them at the first sentence. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of Andrew's points, but agree with Wilhelm that simple is beneficial to reach a wider audience. First off, however, as an educator on evolution I would like to know who is the adjudicator of what is simple? I teach evolution to high school students and have been studying feed-back responses using an instrument for a number of years. I have used Ed's Tools (see also) on evolutionary and ecological concepts and most of the terms I use are acceptable to a grade 10 level - testing the terms I have borrowed on a sample size of 178 students at that grade level. I think some assumptions need to be checked on what people can and cannot grasp. If someone comes to a page on evolution and has a problem with the concept of "natural process", then they should go to introduction to evolution, because natural and process are relatively simple concepts to integrate. Sorting is not difficult. Selection is not difficult. The alternative, Andrew, is to retain an introduction to the concept of evolution that is factually incorrect, but simpler to understand. A factually incorrect view may be simpler to understand, but if this is so, then the concept is not truly being understood, which does not make it simpler, but wrong. I will not accept factual inconsistencies and nobody in here should agree that this is an acceptable practice for the sake of simplicity.

I work with other biologists who have an interest in the public outreach of this and other scientific topics. We meet regularly to discuss the possibilities of public-outreach in wikipedia, but evolution is a problem that we have flagged. I realize that there are evolutionary biologists working in here, but there is something very peculiar in this article because there are is lot of sloppiness. Your point #2 about the term evolution vs. the concept is not what this is about and it is a peculiar interpretation of what is going on here. Clearly, I am writing about evolution, not the term - whatever that means.

I fully agree that the rest of this article has much work to improve on and yet here we are. I have worked and worked on this article much harder than any other article in wikipedia and I cannot get a simple edit to repair a factual error on the stupid lead sentence! I am left to conclude that something else is fundamentally wrong here with this particular article. What is going on with the social editorial dynamics in this particular article? Why is there such a barrier? Is it an American thing? A response to creationism? It is weird whatever it is and even worthy of investigation. Contributions are being thwarted without good justification. I work diligently in other articles, find great collaborations, and other editors note improvements, but in evolution the work is unjustly rejected. Evolution is something I am passionate about and I disappointed to find a few stubborn ring-leader editors who do not want to collaborate, but would rather perform arm-chair rejections without offering substantive assistance.

Your point #3 is exactly the problem I am trying to solve. You have misplaced your critique, because it is the current lead sentence that is trying "to fit everything at the start", which is a good reason to suspect why the factual error exists. Your point that these proposals are going to get longer and longer is incorrect. In fact, the final proposal is a truncation of the first paragraph in the current lead. I have not proposed anything that is longer and longer. This is hyperbole, a sloppy critique. I am fine with using characteristics instead of traits, that must have been a copy paste transition that occurred - I would have retained the former for simplicity. I absolutely want to work on the rest of the article, but once we find a way to work together and fix the first glaring error - then I will be willing to go into the meat of this article. I am fine with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the lead - it is the first paragraph that is incorrect and it needs to be repaired.

For your question, I would say "a response to creationism." My first thought is that a high-traffic article like this one has the potential to change thousands of lives through education, and the lead is the most important part of all, and the first sentence is the most important part of the lead. When I was first taught evolution, the definition we started with was "change of species over time" - using no words that an average person wouldn't know. I couldn't have understood the definition we have here until we had actually finished.

Although I hope I'm not in the group you're calling "stubborn" - I'm just making whatever observations I think would lead to the best result. :-) It's true that I'm not offering suggestions, but there are already a lot being discussed and I tend to not pay as much attention to pages that already have a lot of editors. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal5: Evolution is a natural process where inherited characteristics of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and it explains how new species originate in different places or over successive generations.

I am looking forward to constructive collaboration and not another lame statement equivalent to - "I don't like it." My six year old can give better feedback than this. This proposal is shorter than the current first paragraph to the lead. Please put some legitimate thought into the feedback and offer constructive assistance. Rejection is simple. Working with others is the more difficult road, but at least roads can lead us somewhere.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of getting a little more complicated, but in the interest of collaboration toward something that works, here is my feedback on this proposal. I think breaking it into two sentences could be a reasonable solution. By simple I don't mean dumbed down to the point of inaccuracy. I mean grammatically simple (such as avoiding stacking too many dependent clauses into a single sentence), mostly for the sake of 1) young readers and 2) ESL readers. I think I was the one who introduced "traits" in the sentence, partly because traits was in the name of the linked article and partly because I think "traits" is as easily understood as "characteristics", but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other on traits vs. characteristics. Technically it is the traits (e.g. blonde hair) rather than the characteristics (e.g. hair color) that are being selected and sorted, is it not? So here is what I would change about the latest proposal:

Evolution is the natural process of selection and sorting of inherited traits of organisms across populations over successive generations. Evolution causes genetic divergence between populations in different places, and this explains how new species originate.

I also rearranged the words a bit, in order to group some ideas together, such as the logical flow of traits > organisms > populations > generations, and reserving "divergence between populations in different places" ( > new species) to the second sentence. I'm a little ambivalent about "between" populations though, as this implies comparison only between two populations, where the actual comparison is often "among" several populations. That's my thought for now, I'll come back to it later. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified a little more, here is my new counterproposal:

Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence among populations in different places.

I'm not sure the word "natural" is necessary here and I think it could be construed as false accuracy. I think if we say the process is..."leading to genetic divergence" it has to be "among" and not "between" populations, since more than two populations exist. Origin of species is already covered in the existing second sentence. This proposal still has a huge stack of prepositional phrases, but it's a compromise after all, and I think most people can understand simple prepositional phrases in series. I think it's fairly easy for the layman to understand, and pretty much sums up my understanding of evolution (if I had to state it in 25 words or less). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 08:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Further to my comment above, just a brief interjection) I think that's a good structure. I would retain "biological populations" rather than using "populations in different places" though. (Besides, both evolution and speciation can occur without geographical separation. :-) ) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. There are more factors at play than geographically related variables. While the point does not falsify the sentence as phrased above, there may be merit to leaving it at "populations" (rather than "in different places"). On the other hand, what if we were to shorten it up even more, but cutting "among populations" altogether? Thus:

Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence.

This leaves the results of evolution open to any number of possibilities, which are all detailed farther down in the article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "populations" is necessary, since it's a fairly key point that it is populations that evolve and not individuals. Thinking it over a bit (basically a restatement of what I've already said), I would write

Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence of biological populations.

I would keep "biological" because it clarifies that "populations" has a specific use different from the everyday one, and also because otherwise someone will probably put "In biology" at the front anyways (and it's better at the end than the beginning). I also added wikilinks to "selection" and "populations".

Although I also just realized that I have a concern about the term "genetic divergence." It is usually used in the context of speciation, with two different populations diverging from each other (e.g. see genetic divergence). But of course evolution includes more than just speciation. Perhaps "genetic changes of" or "changes in the genetic composition of" would be better? Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment. I just want to note what has happened here. I have given a detailed explanation about what is wrong with this whole direction of discussion. No one has replied to it with any counter arguments. Instead Thompsma has given some comments which imply that my post just says "I don't like it" (ouch) and pretends not to understand how clear English can ever be "adjudicated" in an objective way. Then he has re-started discussion in his original preferred direction, also introducing other issues which have been discussed many times on this talk page before such as making selection a part of the definition of evolution. IMHO FWIW I think this will not lead to a new lead sentence that has any consensus. If we are going to introduce words with unclear or multiple meanings such as process and genetic divergence then we will not have a good first sentence. And what does it really add?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, maybe a suggestion: it might be much better to break the proposals of Thompsma up into separate discussions. There are lots of different changes being proposed. Consider the difference between the current version and the many different versions being discussed. Particular points needing discussion seem to include:

Whether we should specify that we are talking about evolution in biology and/or populations in biology. I would say that we should specify in the opening words that this article is about evolution in biology. I see no point, if we do that, of making the point about populations.
Whether we really need to use a more complicated word that "change", and if so which one and why?
Whether there is really a good reason to change from characteristics to traits.

...and so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characteristics change due to the selection of traits. I think if we use selection rather than change, then we should use traits rather than characteristics. IMHO I don't see that process is appreciably ambiguous in the given context. But maybe there's something I'm not seeing. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that there are some people in here who are willing to collaborate in a productive way. Wilhelm and Arc have brought in some great feedback and contributions. Just to re-affirm Andrew - I am not trying to get things to go my way. I have an understanding of evolution - should hope that I do after all my education in this field. It seems that you feel the current lead sentence is fine and I will go over this one more time so that you can understand why it is factually incorrect. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." What this is saying is that the inherited characteristics are changing - "change in the inherited characteristics". Inherited characteristics do change, but that is ontological development not evolution. Evolutionary biologists observe and record characteristics of the organisms they study. I could go into detail on character state issues and units of evolution, but for simplicity we can state that a character is a unit of an integrated whole, the organism. Evolution whittles away at organisms that are the vehicles wielding the characters that change during the ontological development of organisms. The whittling is selection and sorting. It is not me who is making this argument, that was Darwin, Gould, Mayr, and even Dawkin's who has made this argument. Even that the sentence states that these characters are in biological populations, it still is operationally infactual and gives a very different contrived outlook on evolutionary theory that cannot be supported by any credible source. Hopefully this makes the subject matter clear to you in relation to the points you have listed. I am not seeking a lead sentence of my own design. I am seeking a lead sentence that is correct and one that does not try to contrive evolutionary theory into a singular statement as the current lead does. Here are my thoughts on the points you raise:

Are we talking about evolution in biology or populations in biology? Ernst Mayr and many others have agreed that what Darwin did for evolutionary theory was to turn the science away from essentialism to a form of population thinking rooted in materialism (see here and here for papers reviewing this). The population aspect to the theory was critical. Variations within populations became subject to rather than the object of natural agency. This actually relates to the heart of the problem with the current lead. It misses this critical aspect to the theory entirely by implying that the characters evolve, when it is the selection and sorting of characters in populations that causes evolution.
The issue of change relates to the first point. It depends on how the term change is used. The current lead uses it improperly. I am open to the use of the term, but I think that selection and sorting gives a much clearer picture of what is actually going on. Change is vague, whereas many evolutionary biologists (including Darwin) referred to natural selection and sorting of traits (or characters).
I am indifferent to character or trait in the lead. Both are loaded terms and synonyms from the point of what is trying to be conveyed here. I can go into greater detail on the character vs. trait conceptions, but it does not really seem to important here. In some ways the term trait is nothing more than the more antiquated term for character.

I have to run, but I will have more to say on the new proposals. Shortly - I thought about "leading to" instead of "cause". I think that "leading to" is not the best choice, because it implies inevitability where most evolutionary biologists speak in terms of probability materialism. The terms selection and sorting should both be introduced, drift in lieu of sorting would be fine. It would be a shame to leave out one of the most valuable theoretical contributions in evolutionary theory since Darwin.Thompsma (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on the discussion above. Arc brought a point about genetic divergence usually referring to speciation - that is false. Genetic divergence does not usually refer to speciation, it covers a very broad spectrum from divergence within a population, phylogeographically, and, yes, genetic divergence accompanies the speciation process, but genetic divergence is not the same hypothesis as speciation (cladogenesis) nor are they equivalent in reality. This is covered extensively in John Avise's work on phylogeography and in numerous publications on gene trees versus species trees. I made an error in my previous post on "leading to" versus "cause" - in both cases it should be "may lead to", "may cause", or "is the cause of". I would like to compare my earlier proposal to the current one that is on the table to see if we can find a common ground while retaining a correct meaning of evolution:

Proposal5: Evolution is a natural process where inherited characteristics of organisms are selected and sorted in populations. Evolution causes genetic divergence and it explains how new species originate in different places or over successive generations.
Proposal6: Evolution is the process of selection of inherited traits of organisms over successive generations, leading to genetic divergence.

Two problems with 'Proposal6' is that it only covers selection, evolution is both selection (causal adaptation) and drift (random sorting). The final clause in proposal6 "leading to genetic divergence" is also incomplete, because evolution is anagenesis and cladogenesis. Here is my attempt at a merger:

Proposal7: Evolution is a biological process of selecting and sorting the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time.Thompsma (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to include natural:

Proposal8: Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting and sorting the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time.

Natural is very important to the meaning of evolution - natural selection, natural preservation, and the naturalism of evolution in general.Thompsma (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good source definition on evolution is found in Strickberger's Evolution - cited in the lead; the 2014 edition is soon to be released. This textbook on evolution devotes a whole section on the definition of evolution through its historical development to the modern conception in a sub-section titled "Evolution as a process". The authors for this text suggest that a definition should reflect on genes, organisms, and populations because evolution acts at these levels. Proposal8 is comprehensive in these terms. It might be an improvement to add the term random:

Proposal9: Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations. Evolution can cause genetic divergence among populations and it explains how new species originate in different places and through time. It might be interpreted that the current lead is saying that characters change in the populations, but why would we leave it open to interpretation and unclear?~

Looking forward to comments, feedback, and discussion. Proposal8 is simpler in terms, but proposal9 expands on the terms and might clarify the concepts a bit better.Thompsma (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thompsma. One thing I do not see amongst all the above is a clear explanation about why any of these ideas would be better than the existing lead sentence. I think that is what is also making it difficult to get more feedback from others. As you know, on an article like this people will generally say that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Can you clarify a bit about how you would answer that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)) 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "successive generations" in either proposal. In the effort to be too conclusive forgettin' da basics. It almost borders on conflating natural selection (selecting for) and genetic drift (random sorting) as the definition of evolution rather than processes of evolution. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew - I gave a very clear explanation above why the existing lead sentence is erroneous. The current lead sentences are conflating ontological development with tokogeny and phylogeny. It is saying that development is evolution. Seems like feedback is rolling in. To GetAgrippa - the second sentence used "through time", which is more general and simpler than "successive generations". We could use "successive generations" instead. The first sentence does make it clear that evolution is a process and, yes, selection and drift of variable heritable characteristics in populations are the critical elements to evolution. The current lead mistakenly suggests that change in the characters themselves is evolution, or it implies it. If you want to have a lose reading of it, you might be able to interpret the current lead in a wayThompsma (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thompsma, I think the average reader may misinterpret through time with through a lifetime so I suggest successive generation. The first sentence should mention what happens to traits: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms in populations such that these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population. These genetic differences can lead to reproductive isolation and the generation of new species. Maybe reproductive isolation is too narrow a species definition but I like the idea that evolution proceeds and speciation "can" be an outcome. I think you are correct the current definition just states traits change without saying why. The traits of synthetic life have changed-although artificially engineered, and this would fit as evolution with the current definition which is incorrect as it is artificial design. Without some mechanisms for the process it doesn't mean anything saying traits change in populations-when they always change because of sexual recombination but it isn't evolution till the processes of selection and random drift make the trait more or less common. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Evolution' in genetics textbooks is defined in a number of different ways- Change in allele frequency, descent with modification, speciation, change over time, and the one that has yet to be demonstrated (that copying mistakes during DNA replication can build genomes) that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a single primordial organism ~3.5 billion years ago. Jinx69 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deliberately conflating evolution with abiogenesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Sædon^talk 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we should demand that Jinx69 cite a reputable "genetics textbook" (or any other biology-themed textbook) that defines Evolution as being "all life on earth shares a common ancestor ~3.5 billion years ago"? I think it's only fair to do so.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For information on common ancestry, see: Theobald, D. L. (2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry". Nature: 219-223. IMHO - I disagree with the notion that evolution and abiogenesis should have such a strict separation; some evolutionary biologists concur with this sentiment. There is a continuum of process from the big bang creating the periodic table of elements leading seamlessly into the origins of life; out of chaos to order the transitions are connected. Evolution offers valid theory on the origins of life - such as RNA world to the selection and sorting of molecules in a niche constructed primordial soup. The theory comfortably reaches into the depths of time and even the origins of galaxies. After all, life is star dust. We are the offspring of supernova. However, the scope of that discussion reaches beyond the basic biological theory that is to be covered in this article.Thompsma (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GetAgrippa - I like your suggestion, but I would tweak it slightly. Lets see if we can build consensus on the following.

Proposal10: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms. Variable characteristics may become common or rare in and across populations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over successive generations as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated."Thompsma (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "explains how new species originate and diverge in different places" and the reference to biogeography which really struck Darwin. This definition is definitely more explanatory than the present definition and more comprehensive (like "in and across populations", and "reproductive and ecological" references are great). I still think most editors don't get why the present definition in the article is really meaningless, but it can easily be misread and is ambiguous. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you GetAgrippa - the current lead sentence is not only meaningless and needs a translator to read the information correctly, it is erroneous in its literal interpretation. Once we can get this fixed, I may start to work on the body of this article, but I am a little reluctant to work on this article. I am thinking I will do this on my own time in my sandbox - because there is too many hesitant 'nay-sayer' editors guarding this article in a ridiculous way, which is preventing progress. Evolution as fact and theory is a project that I have been working on lately and it still needs lots of work. However, it would be great to get the main evolution article repaired - because it is featured, yet lame. If the lead gets passed I will start putting a phylogenetics or evolutionary tree section together, which is the most blatant holes in this article. The article could actually be re-titled "Genetic Essentialism" - because, with a few tweaks it would make a great article on that topic. I'm still trying to figure out where the actual topic of evolution is covered.Thompsma (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The present definition states: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Thus we now deduce that every time sexualy reproducing organims have offspring (successive generations)that their differences (change in traits) is evolution=thus evolution becomes synonymous with sexual recombination or mutations and variation of traits. I won't even bring up the paradox with neutral molecular evolution and this definiiton. A mutation isn't evolution nor variation during sexual recombination. Evolution isn't the change in traits but why certain traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. It is too simple, ambiguous, and problematic. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning some of the two points being made above:

All the changes make for a more complex and unreadable opening, not the opposite.
The theory of evolution, although it did not make the concept of a species useless, converted the word forever into something which is never perfectly possible to define. So evolution can not be defined as speciation. It is the other way around: in modern biology evolution is the more solid fact, and speciation can be discussed in terms of evolution. So in not defining in terms of speciation, the current lead is correct and also not asserting anything controversial, while the changes being proposed are at least controversial.
Also, modern understandings of evolution do not include the assumption of any direction in evolution. There is just accumulating change, not change of a particular type. So in this respect the current lead is more correct than the proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

These edits are just plain vandalism. If you don't like my characterization of the edits, I'll accept being slapped about side the head, but check the editors contributions in other articles. There's an agenda there. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right with you. Obvious creationist nutter on the loose. HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just deleted most of the article. I hope an admin gives him a time out in the corner. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now now! That particular mistake is actually easy to make with a 166KiB article that takes several seconds to load. It can be caused by not allowing the whole edit page to load before making the change and hitting "Save". Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. That might be true, except for User talk:Jinxmchue and several of his edits to other evolution-related articles over the past few days. AGF doesn't count after 5 years of doing the same stuff over and over again. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual motion v. "self"-organising evolution

The article may give an impression that evolution is some sort of perpetual motion machine (articles such as Butterfly effect suffer from the same challenge). The idea that something is consistently "self"-organising contradicts basic thermodynamics (solar energy ultimately caused (cf. causality) by Big Bang is required, hence the indication that the observed continuous evolution is "self"-organising becomes misleading). In order to alleviate this problem the article ought to include something about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any suggestions for literature? Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the article I am no longer sure whether any particular part of it gives the impression of evolution being a perpetual motion machine. I could have deleted the above comment, but I let it stay in case someone else has something to add. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be explanatory to include a section which briefly explains how solar energy and photosynthesis cause the energy and Gibbs free energy required for non-random evolution to take place - or, alternatively, to have a section discuss randomness and non-randomness in relation to evolution. This aspect of evolution is not always well understood, and this might prove illuminating to readers. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living systems are open systems not closed. The 2nd law is related to energy transformations and entropy (the amount of energy unavailable in a system to perform work which always increases)- it isn't related to order or disorder. The free energy is the portion of energy in a system available for work, and a measure of the instability of a system and tendency to become more stable. It isn't about order or disorder but unstable and stable. In any case evolution can be random-drift or nonrandom-natural selection. If you want to make an analogy with order and disorder then you could say that entropy drives the universe and order. No matter the chemical reactions and order of molecules the total entropy will always increase. Bottom line is the laws of thermodyanimcs are supported by evolution and not in conflict. GetAgrippa (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

evolution can be random-drift and the laws of thermodyanimcs are supported by evolution and not in conflict. These two statements seem to be in conflict. It illustrates that this is a difficult subject-matter, and that clear representations of it may be needed in the article. It relates to the perhaps confounding question of whether everything is domineered by causality or not, and may involve arguments surrounding free will etc. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how those two statements are in conflict. thx1138 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Law limits the role of randomness that can be involved in cases which can be described generally. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narssarssuaq your posits are inconsitent with know self-organizing systems in chemitry, physics, and biology. Are you saying there is no such thing as a self-organizing system???? Further there seems to be confusion related to the biology of evolution and the physics of thermodynamics. I see no conflicts. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Second Law disallows that anything is "self"-organising in a strict sense. Statistical thermodynamics does accept that one-of-a-kind events, to which no law can be ascribed, i.e. randomness, can cause something. The overarching view in physics, however, is that in all cases which can be described generally, a "self"-organising system needs an input of "quality" from outside itself: otherwise, evolution would be a perpetual motion machine. This contradicts a strong definition of "self" in "self"-organising; that concept of "self" takes several things such as the sun and its radiation for granted through reductionism. In other words, evolution is not its own driving force or organising force; as a system denotes something which has an environment with which it must interact if it is not to degenerate, no self-organising system in the strict sense exists according to the Second Law. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict. GetAgrippa has it correct in terms of open v. closed systems. If there was a conflict between some of the basic laws of physics and evolution I think we would have heard about it by now. Here is a quote from an article to settle this dispute. I wish people would refer to the literature rather than listening to their own opinions and bias - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

A prime example is provided by the chronically misunderstood Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that “the entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” In this case, the conditions are very clearly specified: if there is no external source of energy (“a closed system”), then there will be a net increase in disorder until the system reaches equilibrium. Local increases in order are not precluded (ornate snowflakes still form from water vapor), and of course, this does not apply to living things, which draw energy from their environments (and ultimately from the sun), and hence, represent open systems. Readers of this article establish this latter claim conclusively, having passed from a simple zygote to a complex organism composed of trillions of specialized cells. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics implied that all natural increases in order were impossible, then it would be incorrect. It does not and (so far as we know) is not. The broader point is that invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution reveals a misunderstanding of both the scope of this particular law and of the meaning of “law” in science generally."[5]

For further information on this, Daniel Brooks and Edward Wiley wrote a book on "Evolution as Entropy" - Brooks has also published further papers on this (here for e.g.). I'll leave it up to others to do the literature search, this has been covered extensively in textbooks and in journal articles.Thompsma (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, I am not making a claim that "evolution" is invalid, but pointing out the incoherence between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and a particular, let us call it metaphysical, interpretation of evolution which construes evolution as a "self"-sufficient cause of all life. As already mentioned, it would seem that the article steers clear of this question, but it might want to dive into this matter as there is a certain degree of controversy and need for knowledge involved. It would require a literature search. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earth gets a constant supply of heat from the sun, so there is no conflict. thx1138 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sufficiency Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a theory about life on earth. The 2nd Law doesn't say systems can't self-organize. It just says that in a close system, entropy will tend to increase over time. The entropy of the universe is increasing, so I don't see what the conflict is. thx1138 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-phrase: The 2nd Law says that isolated systems cannot consistently (self-)organize. Not everybody knows this. Some strong interpretations of evolution presume that life, society, the biosphere, whereever you want to draw the dividing line, is isolated, and thus self-organizes (isolated and self correspond), i.e. no external cause contributes. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such an interpretation of the theory of evolution. All models for the origin of life, which is abiogenesis, not stricly evolution, include a heat source, either from the sun or from vulcanism, or both. thx1138 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interpretation in inductive proofs for certain metaphysical tenets, where the reductionism inherent to the interpretation gives rise to overly reductionist rather than holistic metaphysics or even ethics. I'll end this discussion here for my part by saying that all of this is supplementary information which could be worth including provided that we find a very good and essentially uncontroversial source. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're talking about evolution at all. thx1138 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is evolution a controversial subject? Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because some preachers didn't like their literalist interpretation of Genesis being challenged. thx1138 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ipse dixit claim

Offtopic: no proposals here to improve the article, as required by WP:TALK. Just another Soapbox speech.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago."

It is in the unobserved and unobservable past. Ipse dixit in the highest. Find the relevant literature and cite it.

NPOV

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources

Verifibailty

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.

"Life on Earth is hypothesized to have originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." is scientifically accurate.

Jinx69 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider taking biology classes at your local community college. Sædon^talk 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxforddictionaries.com

Science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

It is in the unobserved and unobservable past. It is ipse dixit in the highest. Written history goes back 6,000 years ('recorded history' wiki). We have no documented evidence pre 6,000 years ago. Any claim before that is ipse dixit. "Hypothesized to have" is scientifically accurate. Then the relevant peer reviewed literature with radioisotopes can be employed.

Jinx69 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur with Saedon here. You may want to consider taking a basic science class. Your understanding of how it functions is, for lack of a nicer term, deficient. For example, when scientists talk about observation, they do not mean direct observation with their eyeballs.

Also written history goes back far further than 6000 years. Heck, we have written BEER RECIPES that are 11,000 years old.Farsight001 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people need to learn how to read or understand words.

Oxforddictionaries.com

Science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:

OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT. Anything in the past is not prone to OBSERVATION or EXPERIMENT and is therefore not science. We can only observe and experiment on artifacts from the past in the PRESENT. For the past we have written history which based on wikipedia 'recorded history' It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing. The claim is the height of ipse dixit. Jinx69 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Scientizzle 18:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether or not the sources say "life on Earth evolved" or "life on Earth is hypothesized to have evolved". The cited sources say the former, and as an encyclopedia we report on what the sources say. There are other articles which discuss the origin of life from other perspectives, and those articles report what those sources say. To alter the meaning of the sourced material, or to synthesize some statement from multiple sources is original research and is not what we do here as editors. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe YOU need to learn how to read or understand words. I said that scientists do NOT mean direct observation with their eyes. Citing the generic dictionary definition of observation or science does not change this simple fact. Repeat yourself 10,000 times, and you change nothing. You think anything in the past is not prone to observation or experimentation? Then we have to let all the criminals out of prison because no one directly observed them committing the crime, so it is ipse dixit to claim they did it. Oh, the police have evidence left behind at the scene of a crime you say? THAT is scientific observation.Farsight001 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New lead first paragraph

+For easier comparison: first sentences

Current	proposal of Thompsma under discussion	Old TimVickers version	New idea by Andrew Lancaster
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.	Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms.	In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.	In biology, evolution is the change which builds up over generations, in the inherited characteristics of the individuals in populations.

The current lead sentence is erroneous and confusing. Hence, it needs to be replaced. Thus far, we have two editors in here who are in agreement that the current lead paragraph suffers from serious flaws. The current lead paragraph does not define evolution, it is a weird and meaningless chimera of definitions of words that sounds like evolution, but fails miserably in its literal translation. We are seeking consensus for the following proposal that was a collaboration:

First paragraph: Proposal: "Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms. Variable characteristics may become common or rare in and across populations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over successive generations as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated."Thompsma (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportThompsma (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's readable and to the point.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In terms of readability, it's not an improvement over the current lede sentence. It also appears to conflate evolution with natural selection. Finally, it also appears to be at variance with many definitions definitions in most standard text. danielkueh (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the current lead is erroneous and so we are back to square one unless a counter proposal is offered. However, the current proposal does not conflate evolution with NS, that is an error. The definition states explicitly that it "is a natural biological process", natural selection and random drift being key plus it also highlights heritabilty of characters in populations that the current lead misses. Plus the argument of conflating with NS is very weak: “Phylogenetically evolved adaptations qua adaptations are the primary explanandum of natural selection, the central mechanism of neo-Darwinian theory” (Amundson, 1994: 560, Phil. Sci. 61, 556–578). I just pulled that quote out quickly from a pile I have on my desk as I am researching for Evolution as fact and theory. Clearly NS is the central mechanism (as any sane Ebiologist would agree) so how one could make the claim that this is verging on conflating NS with evolution as though the two should be kept entirely separate is not consistent with the literature at large. It is also not a copy of definitions from a standard textbook - yes on this point you are indeed correct - and this is because wikipedia is not a textbook (Surprise!); plus if you look back to those definitions you will note that I was the one that compiled that list, so I am quite familiar with the 'standard textbook definition'. As authors we have minds to read, interpret, and present information without plagiarizing other peoples work. It is a definition that is in accordance with and a summary of peer-reviewed papers and textbooks on the definition of evolution (see lengthy discussion above for extensive links to literature). I am surprised that the error in the current lead is not so blatantly obvious that others would not want it dislodged. The only reason why the current lead is getting away with acceptance is because it is so meaningless that one cannot say what it is confusing evolution with - it is just confusing.Thompsma (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this link to Chapter 11 from Futuyma's book is instructive. On page 283, it states quite clearly that:

it is important to recognize that "natural selection" is not synonymous with "evolution".

I am not saying that the current lede definition is the best. But it can be easily sourced to fairly standard definitions found in many secondary sources, which makes it consistent with WP's source verification policy. Since it is essentially a paraphrase of many standard definitions, it does not qualify as original research. I cannot say the same about the proposed definition. The current definition may not be the best, but it is still better and easily accessible than the one proposed. danielkueh (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that evolution is not synonymous with evolution. The proposal does not make this claim either. The current lead definition is erroneous, so this is not the matter of best or better, but a matter of correctness. Hence, the current lead cannot be better and easily accessible if it is presenting false and meaningless information.Thompsma (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should let other editors finish voting first before making further comments that might clog up this section. In fact, if this is a serious final proposal, then I recommend inviting the usual suspects to this section of the talk page so that they can comment on the proposal. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Danielkueh...I'll send out the notification some time in the near future. As always, your input is welcomed - but expect frank and direct dialogue from me. I see how the proposal sounds a bit like NS - because it is taking the option of defining evolution as a process, which has been done before in other textbooks. NS is a process as is evolution. Evolution is also a theory about a process. The important lead is frustrating though, because it is flawed.Thompsma (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to re-affirm that many evolutionary biologists and textbooks do define evolution in the way that the current proposal is worded. The problem that has always existed with the lead to this article and the content in the body is that there is too much emphasis on anagenesis and tokogeny. Willi Hennig, the father of modern cladistics, was very clear on the different theoretical frameworks to systematically test aspects to evolutionary theory: semaphorants, tokogeny, phylogeny, cyclomorphic, intraspecific, and specific hypotheses. The large majority of textbooks and authors on evolution define it in very broad terms of anagenesis and cladogenesis:"Biological evolution consists of two processes: anagenesis (or phyletic evolution) and cladogenesis (i.e., splitting)." This article primarily discusses anagenesis at the tokogenic level and the first lead sentence conflates tokogeny and semaphorant development (ontogeny) as a complete definition of evolution. The lead sentence literally states that evolution is only this kind of change, which contradicts every major definition that is out there. It refers to change in the characters, which are the properties of organisms - populations do not have characters, populations have organisms. So if characters are the things doing the change, then all it is saying (when read literally) is organisms are developing and this kind of change is happening in populations. That is not evolution.

If you search the literature you will find a great many authors referring to the evolutionary process - reconstructing the evolutionary process in phylogenetics, the speciation process, and so on. I took the option of going this route as did the latest textbook on evolution which has a section about the modern definition of evolution and the concept of evolution as an evolutionary process. There is actually a 2013 edition of that textbook out and I have had a chance to read an advanced copy of it. The current proposal is not conflating evolution with NS - it is saying that evolution is a process. NS is also a process. So in this way they are similar. If I were defining NS I would put forward the three part syllogism, which this lead sentence does not do.Thompsma (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another point about the Futuyma textbook source that you indicated for NS not being a synonym of evolution is that he says "Evolution can occur by processes other than natural selection, especially genetic drift." This is nothing new - every evolutionary biologist has always claimed (even Darwin) that NS is not the only mechanism. The current proposal states this - because it includes both NS and genetic drift (i.e., sorting), which is exactly what Futuyma is saying. Plus the current proposal does not say that these mechanisms are exclusive, which is why it elaborates in the 2nd and 3rd sentence on speciation, biogeography, and ecology.Thompsma (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support with the possiblity of tweaking if needed. Daniel you may note I had the same concern that it would conflate issues but I think the take home message is Evolution by Natural selection and Evolution by Genetic Drift, because "change" in the present definition has no context. I really believe this on the right track but I respect other editors opinions too. But just because the present is a common definition in a Campbell General Biology text the caveat is the book is very general with some definitions or information is inaccurate-like Prokaryotes lack organelles is a common mantra of survey biology courses although it is completely inaccurate. This really highlights salient points of evolution that can be amplified in the text, and take this article up a notch compared to general text books or encyclopedias. Thompsma has debated and supported his posits with excellent peer-reviewed article so I think opposing opinions need to make similar posits to be fair. Cheers GetAgrippa (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about context, then that is a question of writing style, which can be easily addressed by adding more sentences that provide context. Otherwise, I cannot support the current proposal. I have never seen evolution defined that way, neither in academic (freshmen to graduate level) texts nor in non-technical books. I have only seen it here. It is simply inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies of needing verification and no original research. Plus, it is incomprehensible. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This definition does exist in the literature Danielkueh. I suggest you go to the Strickberger's evolution textbook and read the section on evolution as a process. This was also inspired from several other citable resources - including the Gould and Vrba (1986) paper on selection and sorting and Elliot Sober has also written about evolution in this way (for e.g., here). A summary of the definitions in the list that you linked too above (that I originally posted) also defines evolution in these terms. Some are more narrow, others are more broad. Once again, this is not a direct quote - nor is it original research as you allude to below - it is a broad summary of the literature and the way that evolution is actually defined. Re-read the current lead sentence. It is saying that evolution could be interpreted as change in an individuals developmental growth. An individuals heritable characters change during development and this occurs in populations, but it is not evolution. Hence, I do not know how you could say that you have not seen evolution defined in the way proposed (which is a summary of the way that evolution is defined in citable sources) while maintaining that the current erroneous lead sentence (which has never been defined in that way in any citable source) is superior.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vrba and Gould (1986) does not define evolution the way your proposal does. On p. 217, they merely state that "evolutionary change is the product of sorting (differential birth and...)," i.e., evolution can result from natural selection. That is different from saying "evolution is sorting." I didn't go through other two references because I do not have time. Besides, it is overkill and in all likelihood, I'm probably not going to find anything. Also, I have read the current lead and it does not make the claim that you say it does. And if it did, then all it needs is just a minor adjustment. I think you are getting petty with "who started or compiled the list of definitions." It's irrelevant. For the record, it was I who started that list. You supplemented it. danielkueh (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielkueh...no need to get personal and start calling me petty. I have never launched an attack on your personal nature, but will attack the concepts that are posted. It is my understanding that this is good academic practice and leads to fruitful dialogue. I apologize if I was mistaken on who started that list of definitions - my stamp/signature was at the end of the post, so I mistakenly thought that I had initiated that list - certainly we are in agreement that I did lots to expand it. The point was that I am well familiar with the cast of definitions that exist out in textbooks and in the literature. Reading through that comprehensive list, not one of those definitions is in conflict with the current proposal.

With respect to the current lead sentence you are mistaken and I think you need to re-read it again carefully. As I stated before and everyone is in agreement that populations do not have traits, organisms do. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Hence - this is saying that evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of organisms, because populations cannot and do not have inherited characteristics by definition - unless you are an ultra-group naive selectionist and I think you are not one of these. Therefore, the literal translation reads that evolution is change in the inherited characters of organisms that live in biological populations over success generations. Developmental characters do change and they are inherited and they are found in populations - this is all true, but it is not evolution. Even with a small tweak the definition offers a very weak form of causal explanation that could lead to an improved understanding of the concept.

Your next point stating that you do not have time to read the literature that is being provided while also critiquing the proposal on the grounds that it is not supported by the literature is unacceptable and indefensible. I spent my time reading and researching the literature in my postings and expect the same in return if it is going to be rejected. Vrba & Gould (1986) like most evolutionary biologist (including the Futuyma text link you provided above) have all identified the causal process of evolution to include selection (short for NS - causal) and sorting (or random genetic drift). Quoting from Vrba & Gould (1986) we do not find a statement to the effect of "evolution is defined as", but we find the following: "Entities that play the same role in the evolutionary process must be classed together...We must consider the evolutionary process itself as basic, and explore its common modes of action up and down the hierarchy particularly interactions between levels (see also Pattee 1770; Hull, 1780)...Such an approach provides a proper framework for understanding evolution as a historically contingent process, and for grasping the primary trends of that history itself." This closely parallels the process definition (i.e., the evolutionary process itself as basic - emphasis added) in the proposal supplied, thus it provides the framework for understanding evolution. Charles Darwin championed evolutionary theory through natural selection (he also wrote about random sorting in other terms), whereas the modern synthesis brought in terms of random sorting at the genetic level.

If you do not want to read the wp:v cited information because you "do not have time" - then I recommend you keep your objections silent, because this kind of argument is weak. I also recommend that you do read the section titled "Evolution: An overview of the term and the concepts" in Strickberger's Evolution textbook. The last sub-section ends on the modern concept of evolution as a process, which was partially responsible for the inspiration in the current proposal. That textbook suggests that any definition or conceptual understanding of evolution should work across the different levels - genetic, organismal, and/or populations; which sounds a lot like the Vrba & Gould recommendation. I could provide a long-list of citations suggesting that this is a requirement for understanding the concept of evolution. The current proposal does this and it adopts its terms from a wide review of relevant literature on the modern concept and definition of evolution in both peer-reviewed and 2ndary literature.

Who would disagree that evolution is a natural biological process? Who would disagree that evolution is the selection of characters? Who would disagree that evolution is the sorting of characters? Characters encompass both phenotypes and genotypes. Who would disagree that the selection and sorting of characters of organisms (not populations) is quintessential evolution? The current proposal suggests that all these things are encapsulated in the concept and definition of evolution, plus the third sentence brings in the theoretical explanatory component - a critical element to the concept. Once again - my post is not a personal attack on you. I may be blunt and direct in my critiques. However, I have always appreciated your input and your assistance. Even in opposition to my ideas you are helping to sharpen the conceptual foundations and knowledge that I have about evolution and how I may assist in here. However, the definition provided in this proposal is not a cheap copy borrowed from a singular textbook definition of evolution, but rather it is an integrated proposal that has been thoroughly researched, debated, and it broadly covers the definitions that exist in the literature at large.Thompsma (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the time to do your work for you because it is not my responsibility to be looking through all the references that you throw in my direction. If you want me to read or review something, then have the courtesy of pointing to a specific sentence and inclusive page number, followed by a simple and straightforward explanation of why you think that statement explicitly defines evolution the way your proposal does. So far, you have not made a convincing case. Finally, you are not in the position to be telling me to keep my objections silent or anything else for that matter. You don't own this article. And until there is an overwhelming and strong consensus among the editors here that your proposal is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, there is really nothing more for us to discuss. danielkueh (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support If we could only go back to User:TimVickers' version. It was readable and accurate. This used to be readable and accurate. Someone made it a mess. Where are you Tim? Long gone I suppose, like all of the other outstanding editors that used to be here. :) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections going to back to Tim Vickers's version. But I think you should read the present proposal carefully before writing "support" to avoid confusion. :) danielkueh (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can post or link to the old version being mentioned?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sample of this article when Tim was active. danielkueh (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it for comparison above, in a table format. I like some aspects of it, but I guess Thompsma would say it has the same "mistakes".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - I hope that you will understand my objection to the current lead, because your posting suggests that you still have not understood the glaring error in the current lead. TimVickers version is better, because it does not make the claim that populations have traits. My only concern is that it suggests that the traits are changing. Individual traits are heritable, which means that their intrinsic properties are preserved. The traits do not change, they are eliminated, replaced, or preserved, which is why it is a population level phenomena that we are dealing with.Thompsma (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree it's better than the current lead paragraph. It's more understandable and more to the point (hence, more readable to the general reader). I can agree with those who wish to reserve the right to revisit certain aspects of it in the future, but for now it is certainly an improvement to the article. I say make the change and move forward. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps compromise because the current lead really refers to process and partly says so: 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 species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

So the second sentence refers to process. But change does to. So maybe a hybrid: Evolution is the change (selection and sorting of variable traits so they become more common or rare) in the inherited characteristics of biological populations (altering the distrbution of traits in individuals of the population) over successive generations. Or something like that if it will make it more palatable to bridge the two. GetAgrippa (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The first priority needs to be accuracy. The second priority is accessibility. Both are important and an ideal text has both, but when no option has been found that has both, and one is accurate while the other is readable, accuracy wins. The proposed text conflates evolution with natural selection, and is therefore inaccurate as a definition. Plus I don't think it is in fact any more readable than the existing text. Joannamasel (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a solution would be to add a qualifier after the current definition. The current definition is: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This change is result of the selecting and sorting of heritable traits of individuals within a population so various traits become more or less common within or across populations. That way it qualifies what changes (not the traits but the frequency of traits in the population), it qualifies that it is individuals that are changing in the population, the change is heritable, and how they change-traits become more or less common. I would compromise to keep the current definition if it is qualifies what is changing related to a trait (not the trait but frequency), how it changes (become more or less common), and why it changes (mostly selection and drift). Unless you already understand evolution the current definion can be misleading. Populations don't have traits-individuals do (gee we can hardly agree on a species definition), it isn't the variation in traits (the traits change say a mutation that produces a defective enzyme that produces a white rather than purple pea flowers isn't evolution) but the distribution or frequency of traits (whether the white or purple become more common or less), doesn't mention a need for a process or mechanism for this change- so implied is evolution always occurs independent of any mechanism or process rather than without these processes at play a population is non-evolving in Hardy-Weinberg equilibriuim. The present definition needs a qualifier for the layperson to understand what the words are referring to. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GetAgrippa, I think that is good suggestion. Adding another sentence to qualify the lede statement or introduce evolutionary processes will also help bridge the first and second sentences of the current lede. danielkueh (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this the classic mistake for leads on WP? We seem to be trying to fit absolutely everything into the first few words of the article. Why? It is impossible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I agree that we should avoid squeezing every conceivable information in the first sentence of the lede. But I think the emphasis here is to improve readability rather than focusing on expanding content. I think one sentence (no more) to help bridge the first and last two sentences of the current lede would be nice. Right now, the first two sentences appear to be "stitched together." This is not something I feel strongly about. But if we were to do it, this would be my rationale. danielkueh (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To joanna - it does not conflate evolution with NS, because it says AND sorting. If it conflates evolution with NS it would say evolution is NS. Note to Daniel...it is lead, not lede - see Wikipedia:Lead_section. GetAgrippa offers a good suggestion, but it does introduce the problem of squeezing more information into several sentences what could be accomplished in one. So we are left with a poor first sentence that is repaired by a qualifying statement to follow. I prefer a solid first sentence that offers an explanation of what evolution is so the reader can leave with an understanding of the theory.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As per DanielKueh and Joannamasel. It is not better writing, and it is not more accurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low readability, and introducing randomness as an efficient cause is an ontological claim which is not elaborated or supported by the article as a whole. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I think Andrew Lancaster's version looks just as fine as the original. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not introducing randomness as an efficient cause - quite the opposite: "...the traditional equation of selection (a cause of sorting) with sorting itself (differential birth and death among varying organisms within a population) would rarely lead to error, even though the phenomena are logically distinct (for sorting is a simple description of differential "success," and selection a causal process)."Thompsma (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting close to the core of the controversy surrounding evolution: Can sufficiency, rarely but nevertheless consistently, arise from deficiency? This touches metaphysics. Possible to review, difficult to discuss without a significant intake of red wine. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the current lead sentence is erroneous

The current lead sentence states: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This claims that biological populations have inherited characteristics. Populations do not have characteristics, organisms do. Of course, one could make the argument that populations do have characteristics - but that is outside the scope of the basic concept of evolution. Systematicists study organisms to infer and test phylogenetic relations according to the nature of their perceptions and documentations of the characteristics (i.e., the evidence), but they do not infer phylogenies with populations as terminal nodes according to the characteristics of those populations as this lead sentence would have us believe. The inherited characteristics of organisms that inhabit those populations do change as they develop, but that is not evolution in the exclusive meaning of the term. It does not matter if this says things are taking place over successive generations, because organisms develop over successive generations - a cyclomorphic hypothesis (see page 42 in Hennig's Phylogenetic Systematics and Figure 1 in this paper for a reconstruction of Hennig's Figure 6 illustrating cyclomorphism); note that in reference to cyclomophism Hennig refers to successive generations in the same way that the current lead does. While this could loosely be interpreted to mean that the change being referred to is evolutionary change, the kind captured in the statement descent with modification, but why would anyone want a lead sentence that gives a vague definition of evolution that intersects other forms of change that is not considered evolutionary proper? I am asking editors to think about this carefully, because we have had an erroneous lead sentence sitting at the fore of this article for how long now? It takes nothing short of a revolution to get this error dislodged and still there is an old cohort of 'experts' in here that want to retain this error because it "reads better and it is more accurate". Nonsense! Can we not use reason and logic to defend our claims and work?Thompsma (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma, you will not achieve agreement by continually starting long new diatribes which just answer criticism by calling it nonsense etc etc. The current opening line simply does not say that the inherited characteristics within populations are not inherited by individuals. It does not say anything about the exact mechanism of inheritance within populations. We simple can not fit everything into a lead sentence or lead paragraph or lead generally - and especially not if we go trying to insert responses to all highly improbable misunderstandings. Where would we end?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make a super simple version after looking at the old Tim Vickers version, but which specifies (unnecessarily in my opinion) individuals. See the table I inserted up above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the Ecological fallacy. It is an interesting observation. Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in hearing logical grounds for rejection of the argument, not at all interested if you think it is an annoying diatribe or not. At least Narssarssuaq read the point of the post. It is not the same as the ecological fallacy, but a similar point. It is a point that evolutionary biologists have recognized for ages that evolution is a population level phenomena. It is the unaltering heritable variation within populations that is being selected (causal) and sorted (accidental randomness). The characters themselves do not change, but they are eliminated, preserved, or replaced in the struggle for existence. The jostling for survival in the Malthusian growth of replicators is what causes the gradual departure in lineages. I oppose your new proposal Andrew - because it offers no causal explanation of what is going on. Evolution is a theory that offers causal explanations for the change. Just saying evolution is change is insufficient, because it offers no explanatory context for readers to understand what the theory is about.Thompsma (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme controversy surrounding evolution arises precisely from disagreements as to its cause(s). This might be more difficult (or simple) than anyone can imagine, cf. causality. If something is to be added about this matter, it must be a thorough presentation of different causal theories. I tried suggesting something of this nature in the above, but there was already an irreconcilable controversy when discussing this, so we are apparently approaching factors intrinsic to someone's worldview, which calls for sobriety and a certain degree of openness in the discussion - if the discussion is appropriate, that is. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a forum for discussing causality in evolution, that has already been done for us in the literature. Evolutionary hypotheses are adduced to provide causal understanding as historical explanations of current effects. Of course there is a cause of mutation. This was what occurred in the classical debate of Lysenkoism (reviewed in "The Dialectical Biologist". The Russian scientific community thought the random genetic explanation was a ploy by the US to take causality out of the equation. For every effect of course there was a cause, but what are we trying to explain in evolutionary theory? Random mutations are caused by something (radiation, DNA strand slippage, cross overs, etc.) but this is not an evolutionary causal explanation accounting for the differences between organisms.Thompsma (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting to the core of the philosophical question that really needs to be discussed here, and that apparently unites all these concerns: should the first sentence about "Evolution" already seek to give explanation, theories and causality, not just a description of evolution which will be discussed in the article as it proceeds? Is that what is really being demanded?

Thompsma wrote: "I oppose your new proposal Andrew - because it offers no causal explanation of what is going on. Evolution is a theory that offers causal explanations for the change. Just saying evolution is change is insufficient, because it offers no explanatory context for readers to understand what the theory is about."
I have been writing, in opposition to this, that the lead sentence for any article about X should just describe X, not seek to fit in the explanation. That is what the rest of the article is for. In many cases, by the way, explanations involve considerations of inconclusive controversies. Note that we also have other articles about such things as natural selection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the emphasis you want to make between what is random or the opposite (ie having direction or an aim), just to make the same point already made earlier, is not really something from modern science. It is a philosophical concept which makes sense in Aristotle's metaphysics. I do not think it fits here at all, although I know many biologists are more influenced by Aristotle than they realise, and still talk of more or less advanced species. There is no direction in evolution, or even better, there is no simple way of defining any distinction between random and non-random.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

+Going past the first sentence

Current	proposal of Thompsma under discussion	Old TimVickers version	New ideas of Andrew Lancaster as discussion proceeds
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.	Evolution is a natural biological process of selecting for and random sorting of the inherited characteristics of organisms.	In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.	In biology, evolution is the change which builds up over generations, in the inherited characteristics of the individuals in populations.
Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.	Variable characteristics may become common or rare in and across populations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over successive generations as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated.	The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.	As a result of evolution, new diversity arises at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. Various traits become more or less common within or across populations.

New tabulation, with new proposal going beyond the first sentence. Looking at the comments of others, some notes:-

The distinction between selection and drift is discussed later. If we keep duplicating and moving things closer to the beginning the article will be a mess.
The point about evolution only applying to individuals was adjusted after extensive discussion on this talk page, and was the reason for the every level wording. I do not have strong feelings about that myself, but I remember that there was controversy, and I see no reason for the lead sentence to take a side if there is a controversy.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you are doing here Andrew to summarize things and bring this together. Great job. Your point about just describing X, not offering an explanation in the first sentence is helpful. Description and explanation, however, are not so easy to separate. In the realm of scientific understanding there is an intimate duality between the description of things that exist and the causal explanation of the facts. In describing something you are at the same time offering what has been called an explanatory sketch (Hempel 1965). Descriptions offer illustrations, sketches, or a picture in words to represent what is being described. Evolution is a theory about a historical process. Are you suggesting that we describe the historical process to define the theory without explanation? Good luck with that.

My concern with your proposal is that it also implies a progressive nature to evolution - "builds up". Note the upward metaphor and building implying that there is an additive complexity. What about stasis and preservation of traits? This brings us into new philosophical territory that could swing into a larger debate. My concern with TimVickers version is "process of change" is left hanging. What is a process of change? We should be explicit. The process was outlined by Darwin and subsequent evolutionary biologists to include NS and drift. Plus, change is not the relevant feature of evolution, it is the differences and the explanation of those differences that evolutionary biologists are concerned about. Put the emphasis on variation, not change. Variation is the key component, because some things that evolve might for a long period of time remain unchanged.Thompsma (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating discussion! Thompsma, do you have reliable sources which take the line we are suggesting the article should take? --John (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma:

You are correct that accumulating or building up of "change" should not be read to imply a direction. I am not sure it does, but I think John Armagh's proposal to use of the word frequency addresses this reasonably well? (Unfortunately it means a slightly more jargony word. Even for well educated people, biology uses this word differently than other fields, to mean % rather than raw numbers.)
I personally do not like versions which insert vague terms like "process".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not merely a "change" in traits in a population which constitutes evolution, but the change of the proportion of organisms in a population possessing any particular trait. Evolution is not demonstrated solely by a trait emerging or disappearing from the population, as inferred by the current lead. A more accurate and more appropriate definition would therefore be "the change of frequency of heritable traits in a population of organisms over generations of reproduction". JohnArmagh (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great posits. Perhaps "change" is the problem and a derivation of Tim Vickers would work. "In biology, evolution is explanatory of the differences in the inherited traits (as they become more common or rare) within and across populations over successive generations." or "In biology, evolution is the process whereby inherited traits become more common or rare within and across populations over successive generations". Then hydridize the second sentence:"Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places, and evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." Iknow rein in it. But this discourse is productive. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So my final suggestion is: In biology, evolution is the process explanatory of the differences in the inherited traits (as they become more common or rare) within and across populations over successive generations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places, and evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." So a little gene flow and hybridization to create this. hee,hee,hee. Upon reflection it is a monstrosity-a mutation. So: "In biology, evolution is the process whereby inherited traits become more common or rare within and across populations over successive generations. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places, and evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." GetAgrippa (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the proposals, I like JohnArmagh's proposal the best. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to try for something which balance accuracy with accessibility.--John (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnArmagh's proposal is only for an adjustment in wording, and seems reasonable, whichever proposal it would be applied to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnArmagh has it. Now to put it all together.Thompsma (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Andrew that 'frequency' might be a bit confusing to some readers - proportion might be superior. I agree with GetAgrippa to hybridize with the "evolution explains "part. The current lead 2nd sentence, "processes give rise to diversity", suffers from the same problem as "builds up" discussed previously. TimVickers version is long and I disagree with the concept that genes producing inherited traits as the basis of evolution - Richard Lewontin and Stephen J. Gould and their comrades have gone at great lengths to purge that idea and I agree with their conclusions on this. I think the "evolution explains" captures Andrews two sentences in one, plus evolution does not "result in something" like an experiment does - there are effects and phenomena to explain, but results implies experimentation, which is not the right sentiment we want to get across here. Hence, I offer the following summary:

Evolution is the change in proportions of variable heritable traits in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated.Thompsma (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a bit further...it is not only change in proportions, but there is replacement to consider as well.

Evolution is the change in proportions and origins of variable heritable traits in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. Evolution explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated.

Remember that this is not saying evolution is the origins of variable traits in the same way that people earlier suggested that I was conflating evolution with NS - because the word AND means that the two are integrated. I still prefer my first proposal that started this discussion, which was simpler and still covered all these concepts.Thompsma (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going along with this idea of change, although I don't agree with it but it seems like I will not win everyone over on this. Evolution is not synonymous with change. Are we going to start saying that horseshoe crabs and the coelacanth are examples of organisms that do not evolve? As living fossils we often hear that they have not changed. This is why developmental biologists get into such disagreement with (what I like to call) the accountants of evolution - those who like to add up the change as a definition of evolution in itself (i.e., the sum instead of the integration). Darwin struggled between natural selection v. natural preservation, which to call it? I imagine people would be thinking less of change if Darwin had gone with preservation instead.Thompsma (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All populations of organisms which have genetic variation (i.e. all which reproduce sexually) possess the potential for evolution; whether that potential is realised is dependent on the factors which drive natural selection: the prevailing environmental pressures on the phenotype together with genetic drift. Stasis in a population merely indicates that neither factor placed significant evolutionary pressure on the traits of the organism. It should be noted also that increasing specialisation will narrow the range of environment which the organism can tolerate, leading to susceptibility to evolution or extinction (depending on the availability of beneficial traits). A more generalised phenotype will have a greater environmental tolerance and less susceptible to evolutionary pressure. JohnArmagh (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is not a force like pressure, despite the common metaphorical usage of that term. Your adduced theory JohnArmagh is fine, but I disagree. It is the basis of genetic essentialism that we see in here all the time (I could have predicted it from the definition you offered, which was a fine definition btw), but it puts undue emphasis on genetic variation as the primary component of evolution. Stasis in a population does not merely indicate something, it suggests a hypothesis that you have forwarded here and it is not strongly supported according to my information. Do you have a citation for that hypothesis? Your post also uses a ton of loaded terminology in surprising ways - "tolerate" "susceptibility to evolution" "potential for evolution". There are numerous hypotheses for stasis that have been forwarded in the literature and tested. An evolutionary stable strategy of antagonistic pleiotropy, for example, might work for the kind of stasis your are referring to, but I have my doubts that it would account for billions of years. What is a generalized phenotype? Is that something that has a wide reaction norm? A theory that evo-devo biologists have forwarded is called Rupert Riedl's burden (see also here). This hypothesis posits that once a foundation is laid, such as the notochord in vertebrates, it becomes burdened as other traits, such as vertebrae or brains, build onto that foundation as developmental modules - each module becomes semi-independent in its reaction norm. The notochord is an ancient structure that has changed little. The concept of burden also applies to stable hox gene complexes. Other theories on stasis in the fossil record indicate that widespread geographic distribution of a species plays a major role, which accords with the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution where selection has a larger statistical role to play in a smaller gene pool:

"Stasis is generally defined as little or no net accrued species-wide morphological change during a species-lineage’s existence up to millions of years—instantly begging the question of the precise meaning of ‘‘little or no’’ net evolutionary change."Thompsma (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "What is a generalized phenotype?" - I said more generalised, i.e. comparatively - neither generalised nor specialised are absolutes - merely comparisons. It is quite apparent that a species which is, for instance, specialised to a particular diet (i.e. bamboo, or eucalyptus) is more vulnerable to environmental change than one which has a tolerance for a wider diet - and that latter will be the more generalised phenotype. The assertion that terms such as "tolerant" are in any way loaded is only if one is determined to apply those terms anthropocentrically (which is a typical Creationist method of application). The word 'tolerance' as applied in the fields of engineering and physiology etc. do not infer any element of conscious determination. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is an effect rather than, as stated above, a cause. Evolution is no more than the by-product of genetic mutation (producing variation of traits) and environmental pressures (reducing the variation of traits to those most conducive in the prevailing environment). Evolution is not the driver - but rather those processes (mutation and natural selection) which drive the diversity of life. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I proposed "Evolution is explanatory" (of the effect) of the differences in trait frequency. GetAgrippa (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is both cause and effect as has been stated numerous times in the literature on niche construction and by notable evolutionary biologists: “ … genes, organisms and environments are in reciprocal interaction with each other in such a way that each is both cause and effect in a quite complex, although perfectly analysable, way” (Lewontin, 1983, P. 276 Gene, organism, and environment). The statement above that "Evolution is no more..." is false, evolution is much more than disclosed. The second sentence offered on "evolution explains" is a bit of a cheat, because evolution doesn't explain anything. It should be worded as "The scientific theory of evolution explains...". The information that JohnArmagh gives on generalized v. specialized is adopted from the ecological literature that I am well familiar with, but I requested a citation supporting that supposition in relation to evolutionary stasis over millions of years.Thompsma (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To JohnArmagh - the reason why your statement on "Evolution is no more than...genetic mutation and environmental pressures..." is false, is because you have forgotten about the feedback that life exerts on itself. The environmental "pressures" - I prefer the term environmental fluctuations that Darwin used - are in part niche constructed by the ecological or developmental actions of organisms themselves. Moreover, genetic mutation is not the only environmental fluctuation that can generate heritable variability in the process, although Richard Dawkins would extend the term gene to include all forms of reliable information transfer. Gould, Lewontin, and many others have argued fiercely against this form of genetic essentialism and as per WP:NPOV we are obliged to heed their words. There is no real separation between gene and environment, that kind of distinction is peculiar. When a gene mutates the environment instantly mutates along with it, it becomes a different environment. Evolutionary biologists (notably many of the mathematical geneticists, not all, but many) historically held the environment as a constant, but that supposition is logically inconsistent with reality. Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins are two authors that have written extensively on this, but a host of other publishing authors (e.g., Raphael Falk, and the Laland research group) have written about the influence and rejection of genetic essentialism in evolutionary theory - Sewall Wright and George Gaylord Simpson could be included among this group. Even George Williams extended his genetical theory of evolution well beyond the all inclusive umbrella that Dawkin's adopted from William's work. Evolution is a science that extends beyond genetics (as important as that discipline is to the study of evolution), because it includes a lot of theory (historical and contemporary) from eco-evo-devo in short. I would posit that Darwin was the first eco-evo-devo evolutionary biologist there was.Thompsma (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, in fact, forgotten no such thing. What you appear to have failed to appreciate is that the organisms themselves, the parents, the offspring, the siblings, the potential mates, the predators, the prey, the organisms which affect the environment in any way, even by their presence, even the other genes in the genome are all contributory to the environmental pressures. When one speaks of the environmental pressures contributing to natural selection one is of necessity including the organic factors as well as the climate and geography. Therefore, contrary to your assertion, my statement was not false. However, your interpretation of it was. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposal on the table

Everyone above (including me) seems to agree that JohnArmagh helped in his posting on frequencies of traits above. Summarizing the comments of others with a few editorial and conceptual modifications, I would like to forward the following to be the new first paragraph of the lead and looking forward to hearing everyone's constructive input:

Evolution is the change in proportions and origins of variable heritable traits in a population of organisms over successive generations of reproduction. The scientific theory of evolution explains observations and facts about the complexity of biological nature. It explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated. The evolutionary processes of natural selection and sorting of traits in populations is both a cause and effect of the diversity expressed at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.^[1]Thompsma (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more keen if it was a little more concise. Here is what I'm thinking:

Evolution is the change in the proportions ~~and origins~~ of ~~variable heritable~~inherited traits within a population ~~of organisms~~ over successive generations of reproduction. ~~The scientific theory of evolution explains observations and facts about the complexity of biological nature.~~ It explains how new species originate and diverge in different places and over time as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated. ~~The evolutionary p~~Processes ~~of natural selection and sorting of traits in populations is both a cause and effect of the~~ of evolution give rise to diversity ~~expressed~~ at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.^[1]

danielkueh (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, some of the meaning is lost. The first sentence is transformed into something that I cannot agree with. It has been transformed into the same old nauseating reductionism that keeps getting pushed and it is almost identical to proposals that were put forward last year that lead to a wave of debate. Rather than giving my usual list of citations to reject this, I will just say that it will not hold. "Give rise to" is a weak metaphor, which is why I got rid of it. It is couched in the class of metaphors suggesting that evolution is reaching in an upward direction, when it is not - it is the increase or decrease of some characteristic. I am fine with deleting the second sentence - I thought it was useful as a transition from the process of evolution to the scientific theory, but the third sentence kinda covers this.Thompsma (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you must be inferring or interpreting the statements in a way that is more than necessary. I and others clearly do not see it that way. I'm interested in what the rest have to say. danielkueh (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When I was a student, I bought a book that defined evolution as 'a change in the gene frequency of a population'. While evolution does indeed involve changes at the population level, it involves changes at other levels too -- most importantly at the level of the individual organism." Things have been updated in the 21st century, because "...evolution is not so much the outcome of random, stochastic mutation that provides material for natural selection—the neodarwinian picture of evolution—but that it is actually a far more complex process of natural ‘genome engineering’."(quote from here) Book being referenced: Shapiro, J. A. (2012). Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. The kind of evolutionary theory that is being proposed by Danielkueh is not the kind "that can fully connect abiotic and biotic components of ecosystems, through the flow of semantic information encoded in organisms' genes." "Evolution is based on networks of causation and feedback in which organisms drive environmental change and organism-modiﬁed environments subsequently select organisms."Thompsma (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "kind of evolutionary theory" you think I'm "proposing" here. I wasn't even aware that I was. Anyway, the quotes you provided have nothing to do with what I just said as they are completely taken out of context. You are blowing this out of proportion. You talk about all this like we are having some sort of geopolitical battle. All we're doing here is just having a discussion on how best to write the first paragraph! Whatever. I'm no longer interested in continuing this discussion. It's clear to me and perhaps to the everyone else that you're not really interested in making improvements to the first paragraph as much as changing this entire article to suite your own perspective and ideas of evolution. Anyone who disagrees with you will be at the receiving end of an outpouring of insults and irrelevant citations. That's fine. You are free to put up as many proposals as you want. But if the proposals are inconsistent with WP policies, then no one will take them seriously. danielkueh (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielkueh...you are getting a bit carried away with the notion that this is a geopolitical battle. If I was interested in getting my own perspectives across, then I wouldn't be quoting published work on the topic. Here is how the quotes are related and the evolutionary theory that you have proposed: Your proposal was: "Evolution is the change in the proportion of inherited traits within a population over successive generations of reproduction." This is pretty much defining evolution as "a change in the gene frequency of a population" (as quoted above). The only substantial difference is that you replace "gene frequencies" with "proportions of traits". This is the standard kind of definition that existed in textbooks for many years, but it is not a current definition that has developed in the more recent literature and it hardly follows that it is an encompassing definition.Thompsma (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fundamental error of mixing bookkeeping and causality that this kind of definition makes. Stephen J. Gould wrote about it here. Of course you have replaced genes with traits, but it is still the same principle. It is equating evolution with nothing more than the jostling of bits, when clearly the most important causal aspects to evolution are much more than this.Thompsma (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing 'genes' with 'traits' is perfectly reasonable, because although variation is due to the mutation of genes, the environment works on the traits - and it is the traits themselves which most clearly demonstrate evolution. JohnArmagh (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going through a list of issues under discussion:

Traits seems widely acceptable. I have been a proponent of characteristics because I felt it was a more ordinary word in more types of volcabulary.
I am not sure that Daniel's "proportions" is better than JohnArmagh's "frequency". Again, while I promote the idea of finding common words, if we can't find a good one, then we have to pick the next best thing, as long as there is consensus.
In Daniel's draft above no distinction is made between evolution itself and the theory of evolution. This article covers both, true, but they are different. Changing the "It" in the new second sentence to "The theory of evolution" would fix it.
"a population" in the first sentence should be adjusted to make sure we the definition does not only cover one population.
I still would like to propose putting "in biology into the opening". I just propose it. It is not essential, but I do think it helps, and no one seems to have a clear reason not to do it.
The theory of avolution is not really only about speciation, but about any change worth noting. Indeed the whole concept of a species, which is an Aristotelian pre-Darwinian word, becomes fluid in modern biology, and not realizing this is something that causes a lot of people to misunderstand evolution. I propose that we can consider using a broad common sense term such as "types of living things".
I propose simple removing "as populations become reproductively or ecologically isolated" simply because it is something to be handled later.

Putting it together, with a bit of tweaking for readability etc:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In biology, evolution is the change in the frequencies of inherited traits that occurs within populations over successive generations of reproduction. The theory of evolution explains how new types of living things originate and diverge in different places and times. Processes of evolution give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Sheez! It gets going constructive and then collapses. I see both sides. I understand the encyclopedic "simple" perspective and Thompsma's want to modernize it. I remember when I tried to add epigenetic the resistance was similar because the field was too new. Editors argued too new information wasn't acceptable-something like anything less than five years (I found that an odd argument). Now we recognize epigenomes and epimutations but still no evolution. Sad because epigenetics is so important in reproductive biology from the formation of sperm and egg to fusion of zygotes-so definite evodevo significance. If you don't believe it plays a role then you're naive of the literature. Perhaps we should compromise leaving the first sentence, but then qualify it with more modern information. That way we bring the novice upto speed from a Campbell Biology text like definition to a modern one. Since there are two camps take a NPOV and present both. GetAgrippa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GetAgrippa I do not see how this discussion has anything to do with any dilemma concerning "modernizing" the definition? To me this is about clear writing, which does not try to say too much at once it get itself in a knot. I do not see anything in Thompsma's concerns which is more "modern" (or less modern).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can get behind GetAgrippa's version with one exception: The Theory of evolution. I am not saying that it doesn't exist or that scientists do not make a distinction between the fact and theory of evolution. But it is not a trivial distinction. Many times, when people say "Theory of evolution, they (many of them) usually use it as shorthand for evolution by a specific mechanism such as evolution by natural selection to explain how evolution of so and so might have occurred. Thus, I think introducing the term so early without careful explanation will only serve to confuse and mislead the reader. I agree, we should define it both ways, but we should do so separately and within the main body of this article. Talkorigins has a nice summary of this. danielkueh (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DK, which version are you referring to as GetAgrippa's?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The boxed version. Is that his or is that yours? I'm confused. danielkueh (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to find a simple way to explain what I see is wrong with this. I read a paper by Walter Fitch last night in a paper titled "Evolution is a fact" in an "Evolution Science and Society" book that I have. He is referring to a manifest fact, which is generally frowned upon by the systematic logicians of evolutionary theory. That is besides the point I want to raise. The point Walther Fitch made is that evolution is noncyclic change. This lead definition makes evolution out to be a cyclic thing. It is repeated rounds of statistical change in traits, but this leads us nowhere toward the complexity of life so it can't be evolution. Another point about trait variation being "due to genes" is absolutely false. There is no gene for something. That is a nasty habit that people got into. I'll give an example that Richard Lewontin has used to make this point. We can predict a protein amino acid sequence according to the DNA sequence. Using computer algorithms (e.g., mfold) we can find thermodynamically stable configurations of RNA or protein configurations. However, there are multiple thermodynamically stable types that can be predicted. We cannot predict what the structure of the actual functional protein is going to be. The protein structure is not determined by the genes. The protein folds into its configuration and becomes functional in its environment, but the folded form is not predictable by the DNA sequence nor by thermodynamic stability. Raphael Falk also makes some great arguments on the false allure of genetic essentialism that relates to this cyclic trait evolution that is being proposed. See here for an accessible chapter written by Falk on the organism as the fundamental unit in evolution, which was also the concept championed by Ernst Mayr and is not being represented in this lead sentence proposal.Thompsma (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thompsma. That is a long digression, but it never refers to anything in any drafts being discussed. Where does "cyclic" come into any drafts being discussed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change is included in the definition - but it is cyclic change that is relevant in evolutionary terms. Read above - it does refer to things that were discussed. For e.g., "variation is due to the mutation of genes" - that is false - the protein variation that we see is not due to the mutation of genes, it is due to the environmental expression - norm of reaction is genes + environment + phenotype in simple terms (This is basic evolutionary stuff - so no citation is necessary). It is this kind of thinking that "variation is due to the mutation of genes" that leads to the kind of reductionistic definitions that are being proposed. I've tried hard to work around this issue by adding extra bits into the definition as a compromise, but then it gets sliced down to the reductionistic view. Here is a link to the book that has Walter Fitch's article see page 22. Here is another quote that may help us and supports the positions I have been forwarding:

"Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually, as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology...The other great difficulty about the theory of evolution is that it is what one might call a second-order theory. Second-order, because it is a theory aimed at accounting for a phenomenon that has never been observed, and that will never be observed, namely evolution itself. In the laboratory we are able to set up conditions so that we may be able to isolate mutations of a given bacterial strain, for instance; but to observe a mutation is a very far cry from observing actual evolution. That has never been observed even in its simplest form-the one which is required by the modern theorists to account for evolution, namely the simple differentiation of one species from another." (Monox, 1974 - in Harre (ed.) Problems of Scientific Revolution, OUP).

To Danielkueh regarding the theory bit - I suggest you take a look at the updates I have made to evolution as fact and theory. I think we should not be too overly concerned with stating the obvious that evolution is a theory, even if we have creationists equating that with a inferior type of guess. We are not trying to win over the hearts of people, we are trying to present the information so that people interested in the topic will have a reliable source of reference.Thompsma (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I must have messed up his box when I last posted. My apologies. Anyways I think Thompsma has consistently argued against just the reductionist view of evolution -something Stephen Gould has some reknown. And this article has consistently promoted just the reductionist view-at one time the definition was the Dobhzansky shifts in gene alleles in a pop over successive generations. Shifts in gene alleles was a fine definition but with the Junk DNA no longer being junk the notion genes is the answer is naive (we and nematodes have about a similar number of genes)it is the regulation of these genes. Traits are an emergent property of genes and gene networks and regulatory networks that further interact at the level of the epigenome. Most of our traits involve hundreds of genes with large numbers of polymorphisms and the environment does have an influence from studies of monozygotic twins. I just think we need to give equal time to other popular ideas as Thompsma has argued very well with peer-reviewed articles (I use to do that when I first started). However the majority frames is fine by me-that's why I'm so keen on compromise because at least it gets done. Seem s it would follow NPOV. I just don't think evolution is one dimensional. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I digress forgive me-I'm an ole fool. I like the box suggestion but maybe add a mention of "environment" and the process. "In biology, evolution is the change in the frequencies of inherited traits that occurs within populations over successive generations of reproduction within a given environment. The processes of selection (natural and group) and sorting explain these differences in trait frequency. The theory of evolution explains how new types of living things originate and diverge in different places and times. Processes of evolution give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins." It adds multilevel selection and recognizes environment in all thia equation. GetAgrippa (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the environment (taking account of every aspect of it as a whole) constantly changes, negating the "given" aspect. Whether an organism has sufficient traits to cope with the current environment as well as any changes to it, determines whether the organism will prosper or not. JohnArmagh (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JohnArmagh, and I think the other point is that, as with so many of these issues, whatever rational basis they have they can not all be handled in the first couple of sentences of this very big article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the environment changes or not it isn't neutral-plenty examples of phenotype and environment interplay- temperature, day-light cycle, vernalization, etc. The phenotype is the compass for evolution and genes and environment interplay. The role of genes presented is a too simplestic one. The recent example posted as evolution of fence lizards maintaining juvenile fright and flight response and the length of the their limbs growing too from invasive fire ants interaction poses an interesting question. Are the lizards learning the behavior, and given the time frame of ant introduction has there been enough time for any genetic change-I think doubtful for any genetic change. Further will it lead to speciation-doubtful more character displacement. Examining pit gene and ectodysplasin alleles in stickleback fish are a great examples of allele shifts but is that the norm? But surely predator and environment play a role in these shifts. I agree you can't say everything but a general selecting (leave out specifics) and sorting as thompsma suggested seems helpful. GetAgrippa (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is change in the distribution of inherit traits between generations. Distribution is obviously used in the statistical meaning and this is correct in both sexual or asexual populations. New traits are also a change in distribution since b4 the emergence of the trait it had delta function as distribution.46.239.126.84 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages with evolution

It is beyond the scope of this talk page to vaguely worry about the content of other unspecified pages. Additionally, OP should read Evolution as fact and theory.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This page was fair about reminding us evolution is a theory but other pages (such as just about any animal pages,) talk about evolution as scientifically proven fact can someone make sure that it is stated as theory in those pages please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.69.133 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. thx1138 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a repeatedly-observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The clue is in the name. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have the Phenomenon of (Biological) Evolution, which is the (repeatedly) observed accumulation of (genetic) changes inherited by a daughter generation from its parent generation in a population or group of related populations. You have the Fact of (Biological) Evolution, which states that the Phenomenon of (Biological) Evolution occurs (due to repeated observations of both ongoing and past occurrences). And you have the (Scientific) Theory of (Biological) Evolution, which explains the mechanics of (Biological) Evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word theory gets misunderstood because it means different things in differnt contexts. in modern science a theory can literally be something we would stake our lives on. Would you rather fly in a plane built based on theories from physics or based on positions held to be unquestionable by one or another culture?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "theory" is grasped in desperation by those who fail to understand evolution, and the scientific process in general, and can't bear the thought that their Christian creationist brainwashing might be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"can't bear the thought that their Christian creationist brainwashing might be wrong." incorrect,im an athiest its a theory not a law. it does not occur 100% of the time,various studies and experiments show various results.--178.167.194.15 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're a Christian creationist brainwashed atheist? Biological evolution is of course a fact and a constant pressure, as shown by the theory of evolution. Less significantly it can be said to incorporate various scientific laws, but you seem to have been misled about the relationship of law to theory. Possibly by creationists who have long had a malign effect on education in some countries, perhaps you came to your views some other way. What you lack is any reliably sourced proposal for improving the article as required by WP:TALK, so it may be time to hat or archive this thread. . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No i double checked the definitions. theory is generalized thinking. law will occur, under the same set of factors. evolution is built up upon many different observations and generalized to this. eg natural selection and mutation. I have no religion because i prefer to observe things. also read the guidelines. Neutral point of view, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be polite, and welcoming to new users. you also have caused this to be treated as spam. Congratulations,you got what you came for.--178.167.194.15 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett. p. 762. ISBN 0-7637-0066-5.

[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.

[Hall08-19] Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett. p. 762. ISBN 0-7637-0066-5.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[1]