Template talk:Evolution

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Biology Evolution is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology

This template overlaps a lot with Template:Popgen - can we remedy this? Please reply on Template talk:Popgen. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added back phenotypic plasticity as a mechanism of evolution. Views favoring this are becoming increasingly discussed. See Mary Jane West-Eberhard (2003). "Developmental Plasticity and Evolution." Oxford.--StN 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC) The idea is that ecophenotypic variants, which can be quite disparate despite having identical genes, eventually come to be genetically different via genetic drift, natural selection, or both. But the genetic changes are not responsible for the phenotypic changes.--StN 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you add a link to a navigational template, you should add the template to the article you are listing. Secondly, it was removed from the template because it was covered by more than one template. See the comment above that seems to have gone unnoticed. Bottom line is that phenotypic plasticity fits much better in a template on genetic architecture than in this one. If, however, you feel strongly that it is a mechanism (the title of the book alone does not convince me, but I'm willing to consider an actual argument), then it might be better to merge some or all of these templates. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that every template had to appear in the article for every item listed on that template. Phenotypic plasticity, for example, is a huge subject. It could justifiably appear on many different templates (physiology, environment, and so on), but to have all those templates appear in the phenotypic plasticity article would be unwieldy. If this is a hard-and-fast policy I'll place it there, but it doesn't make sense to me. Next, population genetics and development of phenotype are both related to evolution, but neither of them encompasses or is encompassed by evolution. I don't see how their templates could reasonably be merged. Evolutionary developmental biology is the field that is making connections between phenotypic plasticity and evolution. Many workers in that field reject the neo-Darwinian identification of evolution with change in gene frequencies, so merging Template:Evolution with Template:Popgen would not be appropriate, if that is what you are suggesting. Many investigators in evo-devo are considering "phenotype first, genotype second" evolutionary mechanisms. The West-Eberhard book is one presentation of this view, as are several of the chapters in Origination of Organismal Form. This view doesn't comport with placing phenotypic plasticity in the genetic architecture or population genetic templates and leaving it out of Template:Evolution. It is a mechanism of evolution, or an important component of some such mechanisms. --StN 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just clarified why phenotypic plasticity doesn't fit where it was placed. Maybe you can find a way of describing where it would fit. I feel uneasy about placing plasticity on any template without also placing its converse, canalisation. Pleiotropy and epistasis are another pair of contenders for being mentioned in the same context. However, doing so takes us a considerable way down the road to the "evolution of phenotype" template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's no longer "Mechanisms" [of evolution] but "Mechanisms that change allele frequencies". But the template is for Evolution. You obviously think evolution is strictly a matter of genes. All I did was put in "phenotypic plasticity". Two words. A legitimate mechanism of evolution. You asked me to justify this and I put in a citation to an 800 page book about it by a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In other Wikipedia articles I have edited this has been sufficient, even if other contributors had different views. I then even supplied a reference to another book which has its own Wikipedia page. But you seem to have put yourself in charge of the Evolution template, and only your POV can go in ("the title of the book alone does not convince me, but I'm willing to consider an actual argument"). I could do the same thing, remove your contributions and tell you that you need to justify to me why they should be there. And then not accept your justifications.--StN 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered dropping this, Samsara, but have decided to contest it. The way I see the situation is:

1. This template on "Basic Topics on Evolutionary Biology" once had a section on Mechanisms (i.e., of evolution). I added a mechanism to this list, "phenotypic plasticity," which while not universally considered as such, is increasingly viewed this way by evolutionary developmental biologists.

2. You removed this, saying it belongs instead on other templates, not the one on evolution, an irrelevancy. You also stated that in any case that there was a rule that if a term was listed on a template, that template was required to appear on the Wikipedia page for the listed topic. You also said that no argument was provided for including my term.

3. I restored "phenotypic plasticity," referring to a recent book on this as a mechanism of evolution by a prominent evolutionary biologist. I also added a statement summarizing the gist of the book, and a link to a book with its own Wikipedia page, on the same subject, containing contributions by more than a dozen prominent evolutionary and developmental biologists, most of whom believe that phenotypic plasticity is an important mechanism of evolutionary change.

4. You once again removed "phenotypic plasticity", stating that the title of the book did not convince you, and I had to provide a better argument. There was no suggestion that the onus was on you to familiarize yourself with the literature. You also changed the subheading "Mechanisms" to "Mechanisms that change allelic frequencies", a heading that does not comprise all the mechanisms of evolution (in the template on evolution!). But since phenotypic plasticity is not a mechanism that changes allelic frequencies, it no longer qualified for this section. This was just a transparent ploy to enforce your POV.

5. In summary, you have gone through all these contortions to keep a two-word phrase off the template that describes a legitimate, academically supported (albeit not universally accepted) mechanism of evolution.

6. Finally, I am waiting for your citation of the policy that if a term is listed on a template that template is required to appear on the Wikipedia page for the listed topic.--StN 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're several miles past the finish line. Stop running. The edit summary says "clarification" or something to that effect. I was clarifying why the four things don't go with the one thing, and I invited you to add a second group if you so wished. If you want to introduce plasticity as a mechanism (with sources, and I'm not going to read the entire book; give me page numbers if the book is the only or major source), fine, but don't put it in the same bag as things whose effect on evolution is by virtue of the fact that they DO change allele frequencies.

If you'd thought about what navigational templates are meant to do for even one moment, you would have realised that the template MUST be included in articles that are listed in it, otherwise it will be an orphan. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new change is not exactly inaccurate, but it looks cumbersome. Phenotypic plasticity doesn't necessarily lead to evolutionary change, but it is still a mechanism of evolution. When it is followed by (stabilizing) genetic change this becomes obvious. But if niche selection by different ecoophenotypes of the same genotype occurs, even if not followed by immediate genetic change, evolution (change in phenotype that breeds true) can be considered to have occurred. In particular, the different niche environments can be favorable to perpetuating the alternative phenotypes even if they are not genetically different. "Non-genetic phenotypic change" also includes physiological adaptation. So why is it in the Evolution template? The only reason is that it is (sometimes) a component of evolutionary mechanisms. This justifies, in my view, grouping it with the four genetic mechanisms under "Mechanisms", as before.--StN 23:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a positive edit, please, rather than reverting? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my changes more carefully. This was not a revert -- I changed the subheading for Mechanisms to be more inclusive.--StN 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why have it muddled like that, rather than two separate categories? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not muddled this way, but rather inappropriately sharpened the other way. One of the emerging trends in evo-devo (as in the West-Eberhard book, and other sources I can provide) is that genetic and non-genetic mechanisms act in concert to cause evolutionary change. You can have much allelic change and little evolution of phenotype, and on the other hand, little allelic change and much phenotypic evolution. (See A. Meyer's work on cichlid fishes.) Why make separate categories for mechanisms involving alleleic changes and those involving non-genetic changes, when the non-genetic mechanisms rarely cause evolutionary transitions without some accompanying genetic change (before or after)? Separating them out would cause confusion. My own real preference is for the heading to be inclusive and be simply "Mechanisms."--StN 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but the upshot is that you don't get evolutionary change without changes in allele frequencies or associations. That is why drift, selection and mutation absolutely stand out as the mechanisms necessary for evolution to occur (I don't think much of migration because migration implies that the change has already occurred in another population by one of the aforementioned mechanisms). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My example above, on different niche environmnents favoring perpetuation of alternative, plasticity-based, phenotypes, shows that at least formally, you can have evolution without allelic change. That is, unless evolution is *by definition* genetic change. This view is widely held, but is contested by some evo-devo researchers. If this is the view you want to reinforce in this template (and it must be recognized that it is a POV), then having a separate heading for mechanisms that do not involve alleleic change becomes senseless, since there are no evolutionary mechanisms that do not involve allelic change.--StN 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, by changing the environment you are changing the species? And that's evolution to you? So if I stuck a frog in a blender, evolution would occur? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't understand my argument about niche environment, alternative phenotypes, and the capacity to breed true. You clearly haven't read any of West-Eberhard's articles or her book, and other evo-devo literature in that vein. There is nothing in this literature that implies that dead animals can evolve.--StN 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's cut this short. Are you familiar with this book: The Origin of Species and its full title? Do you accept that this book defines evolution? Are you familiar with the formal definition of natural selection, and that this includes heritability, whereas phenotypic plasticity does not? Do you accept that by "evolutionary mechanism", most people understand a process, whereas phenotypic plasticity describes properties of a process? If your answer to all of the above is "yes", do you still believe that phenotypic plasticity is a mechanism? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative phenotypes of a developmentally plastic organism can be heritable if the distinct environments that favor them remain stably different. Genetic change can follow this phenotypic divergence, but is not its cause. If you only want to call it evolution after the genetic change occurs you will be missing out the mechanism of the phenotypic diversification.--StN 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the strongest pieces of experimental evidence against Lamarckism is that if you cut off dogs' tails every generation, they still grow tails after many generations. To you, this would constitute evolution because the dogs are kept in an environment where the tails are consistently cut off. To me, it has nothing to do with evolution. It's just cutting off dogs' tails. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a discussion between the old guard and the new guard in evolutionary biology. Samsara, it's pretty widely accepted now that phenotypic changes CAN in fact be heritable, and also at the same time not derive from genotyptic change. The classical neo-Darwinian paradigm erects a false dichotomy between which simply isn't there. The assumption that phenotypic plasticity cannot drive evolution does not stand up to testing. All that evolution requires is heritable changes, not genotyptic changes, and that subtle difference is critical. Neo-Lamarckism can no longer be brushed off appear to be wholly irrelevant; visit any university's biology department today if you need proof. It's also been suggested that epigenetic changes have driven the bulk of diversification in hominids. I'd suggest reading the material that StN has sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.192.148 (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These new concepts of evo-devo and phenotypic plasticity appear to be outside your knowledge base at present. There's nothing in West-Eberhard's book about cutting off dog's tails and the like. George Bernard Shaw dispelled this naive argument in the introduction to "Back to Methuselah" more than 80 years ago. Incidentally, the position I am putting forth is not really Lamarckian, but is more akin to the Baldwin effect.--StN 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Baldwin effect is based on a change in allele frequencies. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Baldwin effect, the new phenotype is one that is already in the developmental or behavioral repertoire of the organism. A change in allelic frequency can then stabilize the developmental pathway that leads to the phenotype, making it independent of the external initiating conditions. There may be pre-existing genetic variation that inclines toward one or the other phenotype, but that isn't necessary. As I said, you can attribute the whole evolutionary step to the change in allelic frequency alone (i.e., "The Baldwin effect is based on a change in allele frequencies"), but that ignores the origination of the new phenotype, which is plasticity.--StN 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the following article: A. Richard Palmer, Symmetry Breaking and the Evolution of Development, Science 29 October 2004 306: 828-833. From the abstract: "[D]irectional asymmetry, an evolutionary novelty, arose from nonheritable origins almost as often as from mutations, implying that genetic assimilation (‘‘phenotype precedes genotype’’) is a common mode of evolution".--StN 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, whose "intellectual integrity" are you taking about when removing the "phenotypic plasticity" link. You haven't engaged any of the well-sourced arguments concerning plasticity other than by ridiculous references to frogs in blenders and cutting off dog's tails. You haven't addressed any point in the West-Eberhard book or in Origination of Organismal Form. You don't like these arguments but have no refutation of them other than an appeal to the authority of Darwin and a faith in genetic determinism.--StN 01:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...whereas you haven't even replied to my refutation, continuing instead to rant on in the same fashion that you have done on this talk page for a while. If incivility gives you satisfaction, I'm happy to indulge you. As for the excerpt of an abstract you posted, I might have read the paper, but I'm happy to judge it on the abstract you supplied, given your impatience.

[D]irectional asymmetry, an evolutionary novelty, arose from nonheritable origins almost as often as from mutations, implying that genetic assimilation (‘‘phenotype precedes genotype’’) is a common mode of evolution

So let us suppose that there exists an adaptive niche for wolves without tails. The above passage suggests that if some wolves lose their tails naturally (by having them bitten off, say) (phenotype precedes), this is of importance to the selection for genetic tail-lessness. I will go as far as admitting that this situation would lead to a slower spread of genetic tail-lessness than if tails could not be removed by lifetime experiences. Saying that such lifetime experiences constitute a mechanism of evolution is on an altogether different hymn sheet, and intellectual integrity does not sing from it. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the kind of thing this paper is talking about; it's concerned with developmental pathways, as is West-Eberhard, and as are several authors in the "Origination" book. And please don't chide me about incivility. I have cited reputable sources all along, have referred to developmental mechanisms, not post-natal cutting or biting off of tails, or blenders. I have called these examples of yours "ridiculous", which they are. This is not incivility. You have, on the other hand, responded to my examples and references re: phenotypic plasticity with the insulting statement that "my conclusion from the arguments brought forward on the talk page is that intellectual integrity demands that this link be removed altogether."--StN 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another abstract, from West-Eberhard, J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. 2005 Nov 15;304(6):610-8:

Phenotypic accommodation is adaptive adjustment, without genetic change, of variable aspects of the phenotype following a novel input during development. Phenotypic accommodation can facilitate the evolution of novel morphology by alleviating the negative effects of change, and by giving a head start to adaptive evolution in a new direction. Whether induced by a mutation or a novel environmental factor, innovative morphological form comes from ancestral developmental responses, not from the novel inducing factor itself. Phenotypic accommodation is the result of adaptive developmental responses, so the novel morphologies that result are not "random" variants, but to some degree reflect past functionality. Phenotypic accommodation is the first step in a process of Darwinian adaptive evolution, or evolution by natural selection, where fitness differences among genetically variable developmental variants cause phenotype-frequency change due to gene-frequency change.--StN 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is covered in the {{genarch}} template already. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Development of phenotype" is not evolution, though there is some overlap, relating to such component mechanisms of evolution as phenotypic plasticity/phenotypic accomodation. We are talking here about the topics in the evolution template that relate to mechanisms of evolution. Genetic mechanisms are listed, but not non-genetic mechanisms. There is no place on this template for non-genetic component mechanisms (under a general heading of "Mechanisms", for example) since you don't believe in them, and will revert any contribution of mine that acknowledges their existence. The {{genarch}} template has no place on 90% of the sites on which the evolution template appears, so readers would have no notion that modern evo-devo recognizes non-genetic mechanisms of evolution. Mull it over for a while, Samsara, and please look into some of the sources I mentioned. In five years none of this will even be controversial.--StN 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I don't find much excitement in it even now. All you have brought up over the last two days has been discussed in population genetics decades ago. But I don't see how we're going to accommodate your "mechanisms" in this template if you disagree with every edit I've suggested to you. As for "will revert any contribution of mine that acknowledges their existence", that contrasts strangely with the edit history, where I have made several edits that included phenotypic plasticity, but none of them were good enough for you. The evidence brought forward by you subsequently has only served to strengthen the case that concepts such as "genetic assimilation" and "phenotypic accommodation" describe properties of alleles and associations, not mechanisms. Furthermore, the concepts described seem to boil down to epistasis and canalisation, not plasticity. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, it all comes down to the genes. (But it's not the case). My modifications have been constructive, broadening the mechanisms category by calling it "Mechanisms", rather than genetic mechanisms, or some variant referring to alleleic change. Your suggestions have amounted to inventing a separate category, "Non-genetic mechanisms", and then arguing such a thing doesn't exist, then lumping phenotypic plasticity with "genetic mechanisms", then (and before) arguing that phenotypic plasticity has no place at at all in the evolution template. Check the record. To reiterate: all I have suggested is using the simpler and broader category "Mechanisms", and including "phenotypic plasticity" within it. That all. But this conflicts with some neo-Darwinist orthodoxy, so it can't appear, despite reputable sources.--StN 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Samsara, you don't have final dispensation over this template, though you act as if you do. I have made the simple change that I suggested above, and now "phenotypic plasticity" is included among the mechanisms. I've done this based on papers published in Science, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, and books published by the MIT Press and Oxford University Press, with selected quotes indicating the usefulness, according the the authors, of considering phenotypic plasticity as an evolutionary mechanism, or a component of such mechanisms. If you revert this, as you have done before, I will begin the process of contesting your censorship of this template, based on the record above.--StN 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who is making any threats (empty as they may be) is you. I point out that neither of the quotes you have given mention phenotypic plasticity, and that you refuse to engage with my arguments directly. I have tried to convey to you the idea that I am willing to work with you on a constructive edit, but you insist that your edit is the only valid one. Tell me how I can collaborate with you. Total submission is not an option for me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to stick with this version for now, though I think there is a category error in making phenotypic plasticity an *example* of Evo-devo. (Actually, evo-devo considers it an example of a developmental mechanism). It's not parallel with the way the rest of the template is organized. I also think it is a bit disingenous of you to say that none of my examples and quotations mention phenotypic plasticity. What else is "adaptive adjustment, without genetic change, of variable aspects of the phenotype following a novel input during development"? (West-Eberhard). And here's a quote from the text of the Palmer Science paper, which it would have been nice if you read before concluding that no reputable authorities considered phenotypic plasticity to be an evolutionary mechanism: "In the unconventional phenotype-precedes-genotype mode, sometimes called genetic assimilation, developmental plasticity creates novel phenotypes before heritable variation that affects their development. This ultimately arises later by means of random mutations." It seems to me that you are willing to sacrifice clarity and concision so as not to acknowledge that there is an area of this field with which you were not previously familiar, and which brings non-neo-Darwinian processes into evolutionary theory. Interestingly enough, Darwin himself, in the 6th edition of the famous book you brandished at me earlier, came to appreciate the role of such "phenotype-first" mechanisms.--StN 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth edition which chapter? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 15--StN 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I shall remain adamant that only processes can be mechanisms. Plasticity is not a process, hence does not qualify as a mechanism. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotypic plasticity, as you note, is not strictly a process, but here it is a shorthand for "existence of alternative developmental pathways compatible with a single genome, which can be induced by genetic or non-genetic changes." By the way, "evidence" is not a process of evolution.--StN 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if you want the phenotypic plasticity article to be renamed, you should make that proposal on the talk page of the article concerned, not change the name in the template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many links throughout Wikipedia in which the linked term is not the name of the article linked to. This does not imply a call for change in the article's name, just that the term focuses on a particular aspect of the article. If this is not standard in templates, then change it to "phenotypic plasticity" alone, though I think the way it is now directs the reader to the aspect of this large subject most relevant to evolution. Eventually the phenotypic plasticity article may have a subheading "developmental plasticity", which could be directly linked to.--StN 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that developmental plasticity is a subset of phenotypic plasticity, I do not see what the longer version adds. Also, some people consider linking to sections of articles to be unclean. It's not always avoidable, but it is typically an indication that a section needs to be spun out into a separate new article, with the original article retaining a summary and {{main}} template pointing to the more detailed article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the Human evolution template and I was thinking that Timeline of human evolution may fit better there once I am done. Will anyone object if I take it off here to put over there (most pages with the Human Evolution template have the this template as well so no need to have the link on both.) Nowimnthing 23:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me.--StN 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I went ahead and removed it. I think the link to Human evolution should remain even though that is on the other template as well. I see the organization like this

• Evolution
  1. Human evolution
     • Timeline of human evolution

Nowimnthing 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This new template (subtemplate?) seems superfluous or premature. The only two nonredundant entries do not link to actual articles. Moreover, those entries refer to "models", hardly a representative selection of the field's topics.--StN 02:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two items on the template both lead to the same article, Human evolution. I have changed the template to point to the end target point not the redirect, but ask the question, "Should there be two entries". I have no axe to grind, I am just passing through --Yendor1958 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptation, micro- and macroevolution are the result of evolutionary processes, they are not processes themselves. Should this be called patterns of evolution or effects of evolutionary processes?

Natural selection, drift, etc. are processes in evolution that produce adaptation, not the other way around.

I think that this would help clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.20.196 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added a new section to this template in my last edit. It pertains to the evolution of psychological and social processes. Since biology and behavior are heavily intertwined, (and sense biological evolution technically encompasses behavioral evolution) I thought it was appropriate, but some of you may not think so. I understand if it is deleted, I just decided to notify anyone who reads the talk section of this article of my changes (if you want to delete or change it). Zach Winkler (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following mechanisms be added to the evo-devo section from the template?

• (1) Heterochrony (changing the time or duration of developmental phenomena or gene expression)
• (2) Heterotopy (changing the placement of developmental phenomena or the cell types in which a gene is expressed)
• (3) Heterometry (changing the amount of gene expression in a manner sufficient to alter the phenotype)
• (4) Heterotypy (changing the sequence of the gene being expressed during development)
• (5) Heterocyberny (change in the “governance” of a trait from being environmentally induced to being genetically fixed)

I found it in a interview of Scott F. Gilbert: [1]. Zorahia (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it would fit into that section nicely, I think you should add it in. Zach Winkler (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The box should not contain topics which are almost never taught as aspects of evolution. Morality? Schizophrenia? Hair? No way are those "Basic topics". For goodness' sake don't let it get so out of hand. The major topics are those which are treated in all the main undergraduate textbooks on evolution. Not just mentioned, but properly treated. Too many cooks are in this kitchen... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit (13 March 2013, see #New Section Created above) that added the "Evolution of social structures and psychological processes" section. Those topics do not seem to be mentioned in the article Evolutionary biology, and they are not part of "evolution" as I understand that term. Of course evolution has affected many aspects of behavior which in turn affects social structures, and it is true that the word "evolution" is used in many of the social sciences, but that section does not concern biological evolution, and it may be best to remove it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my edit, I mentioned this in the talk section titled "New Section Created", but no-one responded. Feel free to delete what you feel unneeded. I added it with the thought that behaviors essentially have a biological root to them so that they may apply to this template, but I see your points. If you do remove the section, make sure to not simply undo the edit, as I also alphabetized some things and added some material to other sections (like taxa). Sorry to cause this trouble. Zach Winkler (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful response, and no need for any apology—editing such as adding or removing stuff is standard procedure. I removed the section. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image in the template going to be used? —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's necessary or helpful in a case like this. Perhaps Darwin's first tree of life sketch would do as an icon if we really wanted to include something suggestive of the field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CommonKnowledgeCreator: What article lede? Invasive Spices (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Selective breeding article lede, specifically where it says "Darwin used artificial selection as an analogy to propose and explain the theory of natural selection but distinguished the latter from the former as a separate process that is non-directed." -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: E and NS are not the same thing. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the Evolution article. You are correct in the same way that not all squares are rectangles, since natural selection is a subset of evolution and artificial selection is included by defining evolution to include all changes to the heritable characteristics of a biological population over successive generations. However, readers need to be reminded that there is a distinction between the various forms of evolution that are non-directed and artificial selection because it is easy to confuse what appears to be artificial selection with the form of natural selection called social selection (per the work of Christopher Boehm). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied the current placement reminds them? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]