Template talk:Evolution

message: 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)
thread_title: Template overlap

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you make a positive edit, please, rather than reverting? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So why have it muddled like that, rather than two separate categories? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cumbersome changes

message: 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)
replies: text: The Baldwin effect is based on a change in allele frequencies. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Baldwin effect

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sixth edition which chapter? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chapter 15--StN 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  template pointing to the more detailed article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint about Samsara

message: 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)
replies: text: No objection from me.--StN 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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
*#Human evolution
*#*Timeline of human evolution
Nowimnthing 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of human evolution

message: 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)
thread_title:  Topics in molecular evolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human Evolution/Evolution of Homo Sapiens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adaptation, microevolution are not processes in evolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Section Created 

message: 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: . Zorahia (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evo-devo section 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was  (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peripheral articles need pruning 

message: Is the image in the template going to be used? —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hello  What article lede? Invasive Spices (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  E and NS are not the same thing. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you satisfied the current placement reminds them? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective breeding