Talk:Evolution

This evolution related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please bear this in mind when editing the article

Please keep this in mind and be sure your edits are of the quality level that implies. The abstract can be found here.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Can't you at least get references for these claims?Bohdan 19:21, 30 May 2007 (CDT) 19:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

For these facts? Of course we can, Oh Anonymous One. We just choose not to. Seriously though, we'll get to it. But really, it's like asking for references for statements like, "Proteins are encoded by DNA".--PalMD-yada yada 19:18, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, that would be a pretty easy reference to get. Any high school biology textbook should have it. --Kels 19:19, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, since OAO identified himself, at some point we should reference some of this. But it really is hard to decide which facts are to basic to ref, and which ones require more citation. TimS or me should probably help with that. When I get some free time.--PalMD-yada yada 19:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I can't remember, how does Satan work into it again? And shouldn't you add more quotes? Like, lots more quotes. --Kels 20:39, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Needs more cowbell and Satan. Also, can you mention how an enormous cow threw up the universe? Thanks! ʄĹїþþїɲ;-) 15:33, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Recently, some biologists have ignored all other scientific fields (ie, physics) and claim that evolution is the ultimate scientific explanation, which is of course completely ridiculous. (note that I accept evolution in its place) 68.197.173.216 15:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

How recently, and which biologists, and surely you jest? ħuman 16:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 Cover Story? (sticky)

Please do not archive this section Yes. DogP 21:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!
I think it's close, let's vet it some more. And let's kill the animated mowse, slowly. ħuman 23:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Back off! Nobody kills the mowse! JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!
I have killed hundreds of mowses, and I am not ashamed of it! ħuman 00:05, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you like Mowses? $\approx$$\pi$ Mowse 00:17, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
Animated mowses, attack Human! JÁνąŞ₡Ωp Talk to ME BAN SOMEONE! MOWSE!
Dead mowses all around, my traps defy your onslaught! ħuman 00:44, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

 Worth mentioning?

I don't know much of anything about this, but this seems related to the subject. It might warrant inclusion at least as an external link. I'll let one of the Bio guys decide.— Unsigned, by: Hamilton / talk / contribs 02:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

To save five minutes of everybody's life could you explain what the video says and why it could be important? :-) Cheers. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 08:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Subspecies in Platypi is what it's about. Dunno how it's relevant. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 08:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 Minor changes

Considering that this is a cover story, I'll mention what I'm going to do here before I do it. First, I'm going to merge Evilution into here (under "Broad anti-evolution arguments") per its talk page; second, "Evolution is both a theory and a fact" doesn't seem to belong under that aforementioned header. M'kay? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 03:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

'The problem with evolution is' that there are so many gaps - how did the original primordial soup (as with the stuff produced in the bottles in the experiments, whatever the comets (chemicals and kinetic energy) and the black smokers provided, and the effects of local conditions go to 'virus likes' and then to 'amoebas' and then to 'multicellular creatures' (using modern equivalent terms)the complexity of many species (how did dinosaurs come to swallow stones to aid digestion; the shift from light-sensitive nerve endings to eyes etc) and 'there are so many species'. In this case there is no opposition to evolution per se - if there is a niche species will evolve to find it (including nuclear power stations), and 'species adapt or disappear.'

A question of marketing readily understood explanations. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to tick one off the argument bingo card or just drink... narchist 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah so many gaps. Let us worship.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 17:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

'Five minutes till library log-off -itis' (which comes just after 'the boss is coming back' in the list of excuses for compressed-entries)..

The point is much #does# make sense to the general willing-to-accept-the-concept public - 'evolution as a general explanation' makes sense, 'species splitting into two' (eg 'dogs the cat will persuade are potentially lunch' and 'size of a small horse, I tell you' becoming incapable of interbreeding for more than just practical reasons), adapting or not to environments, and extinction.

However certain aspects need more coverage/a statement of how things are thought to have happened: even if 'explaining by bingo card.' 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure why an article on Evolution should contain all the alternatives to evolution or stuff related to origins. BTW guys...."bingo card" in America...um...can mean something else. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Being what? (There are a number of such terms, and an Anglo-Australian equivalent involving a brand of stickytape). The point is - there are lists refuting Conservapedia/Creationist viewpoints/giving scientific explanations - could there be a similar list of key points aimed at the person who accepts evolution but is puzzled by questions such as 'what is the current thought about turned the primordial soup into self-replicating chemicals/life whether or not as we know it Jim' and 'does Lamarkianism ever work biologically (rather than for 'evolution of memes.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 you ever notice?

that anti-evolutionists seem to not understand a few things. They seem to think that organisms can only have one new trait at a time (lets say longer tail) instead of several (longer tail, longer nose, longer legs etc) and, they also dont seem to be able to understand that those changes are not immune to chain (a longer tail, can become even longer in subsequent generations), and last but not least . . . they dont seem to understand these changes are accumulative, some argue "yeah these changes cant change the species" but . . . what about when they have gotten so many changes that they no longer resemble the species they once did . . . isnt that a new species? 71.238.243.98 (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes 03:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can a fossil reveal the heritage of something? A fossil is an image left over by something that had once lived and then died. But to say that a fossil happened to evolve from another fossil, well, where is this coming from? How do we know, without just interpreting far more into this than we should? Do fossils actually show HERITAGE or not? Bumpy Toad (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a question more specifically related to paleontology, phylogeny or the fossil record.
Anyway, first, who says how "far into this" "we" should be interpreting? Barring a time machine, there's no 100% sure way to know the past. That applies to both paleontology and crime scene investigation. Second, the word you are looking for is probably "inheritance", no "HERITAGE" (and please don't SHOUT).
As for your question, the ages of fossils, both absolute and relative, allow you to make a census saying which critters lived when - before, after or at the same time as other critters. Then comparative anatomy can suggest which creatures are related, and if you chain relations to each other, you get a tentative phylogenetic tree. Paleontologists love to argue which species is the more likely ancestor of another - see for example this.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, that's what I meant by interpreting. Just noticing superficial similarities between fossils and calling it evolution wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

Then again, what do I know? That's why I'm asking the question, because I'd just like to understand it better.

Has there been any testing that has verified human from non-human evolution, in particular? Bumpy Toad (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Testing is an interesting concept. What there is is a collection of human like fossils over a very long time span. Although saying exactly which ones evolved into which is very hard it is easy to see that the later the fossil the more "human like" they are.
But let's look at the alternatives. If these humaniods didn't evolve into each other then how did they come and go? Why are the earlier ones less human like? Why is there a steady increase in brain size? The only hypothesis that makes sense is evolution. The big, big question is what evolved into what, not whether there was evolution. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Most of these are not exactly "superficial" similarities, and evolutionary theory isn't based solely on the fossil record - comparative anatomy applies also to living animals, nowadays we also have much better understanding of genetics, including the ability to sequence genomes, the appearance of new genetic traits has been observed in the lab, etc., etc. If you want a real, in-depth explanation, I suggest talking to a evolutionary biologist or a paleontologist and/or trying to read the literature, starting with a paleontology textbook if you are particularly interested in fossils. You can also try asking the same thing in the talk.origins newsgroup.
As for your last question, it's unclear. What do you mean by "human" and "non-human evolution", and how does one "verify" the former from the latter? Do you mean the evolutionary origin of humans? I suggest starting with the Wikipedia article on human evolution.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)