Talk:Evidence of common descent/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Advertisement?

I noticed the "Evolution - Provided by PBS" link in the External Links section. When visiting, my impression is that it's a link to sell a series. What do other editors think? Thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Supports and is relevant to the article per WP:ELYES Jim1138 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Title

I know it has been brought up a thousand times before, but the title is not a descriptor of the material within the article. Instead of reworking the article, I propose that we just rename it to Evidence for Descent with Modification. That is the term Darwin used and it fits better with the common publications relating to the evidence for evolution.

For reasons unknown, the past discussions changed the article name from Evidence of Evolution to Evidence of Common Descent. Sensible but unreasonable in my opinion considering that most of the literature that surveys the subject matter just simply calls it the evidence of evolution. Also, a simple Google search for Evidence for Evolution turns up thousands of results with that title. Even the most well-known publications use the term evidence of/for evolution.

That being said, as per WP:CRITERIA, the current title does not fit the 5 main standards for article titles. Whereas, if the title were simply Evidence of (or for) Evolution or my proposal of Evidence for Descent with Modification, it would be more recognizable (possibly inviting new editors due to the fact that the laymen tends to not know what "common descent" is but definitely has heard of the term "evolution").

In addition, past talk page discussions have commented on the fact that the material is not so much evidence of common descent. Technically it is, but the article encompasses a much broader scope essentially rendering it, in my opinion, obsolete. Why change the material in the article when you can just change the title to fit what the article has evolved into? Of course that logic cannot be used in all circumstances, but in this one specifically, I think it can apply because "common descent" leaves out various other aspects of the evidence for evolution as a whole.

Any thoughts on the matter? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that noone answered your question for a while. I like the current name, but I don't personally see a problem with the one you proposed. That said, I don't have any particular authority to decide. It's also difficult to evaluate if no objection implies that others agree... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a dead talk page at this point so I guess the issue is moot. Thanks for your response though. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I got your message. It seems that this article has been substantially revised since my last comment, several years ago, so that now it focuses a bit more on the actual topic implied by the title, which is the evidence for the common descent of all living organisms. It's no longer just about obvious things, like that humans and chimpanzees are related. Just by reading it, there now seems to be some supporting evidence cited. It's not perfect, but it's significantly improved. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose a discussion and reopening of this topic. I have requested a name change. Input and debate is welcome. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move, per WP:COMMONTITLE, and rationales provided below. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of common descent → Evidence for descent with modification – See rational: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Per book usage, the current title is much more common. And the proposed alternative drops the key concept of "common" that this article is about – that is, a single ultimate ancestor. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, The rationale above suggests that the title was 'weakened' when it was changed from 'Evidence for Evolution' but then suggests what seems to be a further weakening. Common descent has often been the sticking point for those who can't accept evolution and I think the article now does a reasonable job of explaining it. It's technical enough already and doesn't need more nudges in that direction. Chris55 (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment. "Common descent" means "Genetically distinct organisms sharing an ancestor." When two genetically distinct populations descend from a common ancestor, this implies that evolution occurred. So evidence for the idea that evolution occurs can be relevant to an article on 'common descent' insofar as common descent (between distinct populations) is always an example of evolution. It can also be relevant insofar as people's doubts about common descent stem from doubts about whether evolution occurs; showing that evolution occurs at all can be a stepping stone to showing that evolution results in separate genetically distinct populations (and species, genera, etc.). If we were going to go with a name change to the weaker idea, then 'Evidence of evolutionary change' is probably a better title than 'Evidence of common descent'. But it's easier to justify discussing evolutionary change in general in an article about common descent, than to justify spending a lot of time on common descent when an article is about evolutionary change in general. Another alternative would be 'Evidence of evolutionary change and common descent', but this might misleadingly imply that common descent isn't an example of evolutionary change. -Silence (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - the article seems very geared towards providing evidence for common descent specifically. There happens to overlap with evidence for 'descent with modification' but if you're using the term 'descent with modification' you might as well just say 'evolution'. If there was a "Evidence for Common Descent by Evolution/Evidence for Common Descent and Evolution" I might consider it. Otherwise there does not seem to be enough reason to specifically justify changing it.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Thank you for inviting me to vote. I am still unsure how this article should be named, as per my last comment (under the same IP address above), and I like the current title. Dicklyon and Silence have raised interesting points. I would neither object to "Evidence for descent with modification", nor with "Evidence of evolution" or "Examples of evolution", although the article might then require some adaptations (or fragmentation). As another variant of the aforementioned "Evidence of evolutionary change" idea, I could also propose "Evidence of diversification of life though evolution", or similar, but then again the scope of the article would then change... Sorry for not helping much, I'm ambivalent. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Dicklyon and Chris55 above. Jim1138 (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Strong Oppose there is absolutely no reason why changing to the proposed title would be appropriate. At best this should have been a request back to the original title. InsertClever Phrase Here 11:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image captions

Is there any reason why the images are numbered off (like the first image caption starts out with "Figure 1a")? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It allows the text to refer to the figure in the proper context. This is done for instance for (Fig. 2b), however it seems that the references are indeed currently lacking for figures 1<x>. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Article title #2

Why is it "evidence of common descent" instead of "evidence for common descent"? I'd make the change myself but given the section above on the article title, it looks like it'd be controversial. Banedon (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The title reads perfectly clearly in British, Australian and no doubt many other varieties of English, so it could be ye olde language variation argument all over again, not worth it. There are thousands of badly-written and badly-cited articles out there weeping for attention, so if you have spare energy, you know how to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

^ Rude. Before you throw the "why don't you go improve another article" line at me again, I'll say the same to you too: if you don't like responding to me here, go improve another article that is "weeping for attention" if you "have spare energy". Alternatively, go to ANI.

If you are interested in discussing this then I'll point out to you that:

The phrase "evidence for common ___" occurs three times in this article.
[1] indicates the trend has been towards "evidence for common descent" since 2003. In fact 9 years ago, which is when the latest data was available, "evidence for common descent" was twice as common as "evidence of common descent".

Banedon (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer "evidence of common descent" (I was previously 76.10.128.192). —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Various arguments have been made in past discussions about the title of this article, and "of" and "for" are certainly used interchangeably. Popular published discussions often use them interchangeably as well. Here, it has been arbitrarily decided that "or" is best. Nevertheless, I think "for" matches more closely with most published matter concerning the topic. And for that matter, nobody uses the phrase "Evidence of common descent" anyways. They use "Evidence for evolution". The article has a completely ridiculous title and should have been changed years ago. It would increase readership, editorship, and actually be the first result on a google search. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evidence of common descent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Avida creationist criticism

This is working in reverse, since per WP:BRD this thread should already have been started by Rcronk when his edit was reverted. This was restored, opinions welcome. My impression is that it's undue in a science article (diff). —Paleo Neonate – 21:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, PaleoNeonate. I wasn't aware that the revert was to stand until discussion happened. Thanks for educating me on that. Can you give specific details from the Avida section of the book I cited that disqualify it from being included here? (P.S. It's a mathematical and an algorithmic criticism, not a creationist criticism, so I've corrected the title of this section by making it generic.) --Rcronk (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, undue in a science article. Sourced to authors Marks and Dembski, who have a history of attempting to legitimize pseudoscience. (See Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center) which I see as a red flag. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just plain Bill: the discussion is around the citation in question. I don't think ad hominem arguments justify rejecting a valid criticism of Avida. The book and criticism should be evaluated on their own. I have been a software engineer professionally since 1992. I've read the entire book (including the section on Avida), and in my opinion, the criticism of Avida is valid. Criticism is vital to the scientific method. --Rcronk (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the material looks WP:UNDUE, since the article is about evidence; and the somewhat philosophical criticism of Marks et al is from a doubtful source, since the authors are known to favour pseudoscience, and the source is a book (no page given, by the way), not a peer-reviewed paper (and in a book of hundreds of pages, review is by no means as line-by-line as in a paper). What we require for the material to be included is a citation from an independent and reliable source which supports the Marks et al criticism of Avida. Otherwise I think we shouldn't get into it at all. A way out might be to find some non-Avida examples of simulation, i.e. to rewrite the (short) section completely with neither Avida nor Marks, making the more general point that simulation evidence exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

“information required for Avida to succeed” OK, Rcronk, please explain how Marks, Dembski, and Ewert define “success” in a way that addresses what Lenski’s model evaluated. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Avida doesn't simulate common descent, so I'm not sure why it's listed on this page in the first place. Secondly, Avida's search space is vastly smaller than any biological search space I'm aware of (DNA, RNA, amino acid sequences, etc.), and so it's not really modeling biological searches for functional information at a realistic scale. Thirdly, Avida has a "stairstep information source" embedded in it that makes it succeed. Here's what the book states at the beginning of the Avida section. It then goes on for several pages laying out support for this statement. "Like EV, Avida is a computer program which, its creators say, 'show[s] how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.' Also like EV, contrary to the claims of the authors, the source of the success of Avida is not due to the evolutionary algorithm, but to sources of information embedded in the computer program. A strong contribution to the success of Avida is stairstep information source embedded in the computer program. Also like EV, the sources of information can be mined more efficiently using other search algorithms." This is a valid criticism of Avida, which doesn't model common descent anyway. Ad hominem and guilt by association attacks aside, the criticism and citation are valid. The criticism is straightforward and not controversial. What is controversial (and biased) in my opinion, is using Avida as evidence for common descent (also without including any criticism of it). --Rcronk (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That says nothing about Dembski’s definition of “success” in terms of what the simulation was specifically exploring. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if the whole section is off-beam then it's easy, I'll delete it now. If anyone wants to locate some actual simulation of common descent, then of course they can cite that and add a freshly written section. I must say I find the rationale for including the Marks et al piece very curious but since I'm removing it as well, it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of the Avida section. The including of valid criticism of ideas is common (rather than curious) in wikipedia articles. --Rcronk (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The difficulty was with what you here label "valid", which as you know the rest of us don't agree with at all, but that's history now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK with removal. Avida seems to have been an exploration of the quantitative effects of varying mutation rate. As such, it provides a narrow set of data explaining how some features of descent with modification might proceed. I suspect Dembski et al. wanted to frame it in terms of a grand unifying proof of evolution, by way of creating a straw man to demolish. The section did not explain Avida well, so until better writing comes along, bye. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issue. I don't object to the mention's removal. Some software may eventually be more adequate, or a general section on computer simulation and genetic algorithms. All such software is of course working with simplified models and someone could always come up with criticism based on that. It's not exactly clear what the alleged "scale" was in the above argument (and I don't intend to read the criticism at current time), but if it was the argument that after selection, another generation was used without completely resetting the genes, that's also how biological evolution works. If the "information" already present in the software was for selection, nature also doesn't select out of nothing.
However, if those programs are based on modification (which could be random, pseudorandom, iterative, it doesn't matter) and assessment/selection, they can be successful for their purpose and can adequately be termed genetic since they work on those basic principles inspired by evolution. This could be considered additional evidence that evolution by modification and selection works, but is never necessarily an exact model of biology, at least at current time. For practical applications they don't need, and should not be, proper biological simulations. Since Avida was designed for biology teaching and study, it was not completely off-topic, unlike most genetic programming used in the industry... —Paleo Neonate – 05:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be desirable to have a fresh section on the software that actually does provide evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked again the critical sources and found strange that despite being in CS and being familiar with genetic algorithms I never heard of "evolutionary informatics". Hmm, maybe that Avida shoud be restored, afterall, with a better description on what evidence it supports. Notes: we have a similar thing here: Evolutionary informatics#Controversy (funny was this previous revision, then this other redirect and finally the first revision in article state which was already about creationist criticism) and I found [2]. It seems to be another in-universe thing to discredit science (and another article to improve)... —Paleo Neonate – 09:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We need an expert here. So far, I haven’t seen much mention of Avida’s specifics, but maybe I haven’t been looking in the right places. Just another blind guy feeling around the edges of what is probably a tractable, hard-working elephant, I don’t have a clear complete view of it. Richard B. Hoppe, writing at talkreason.org, says “The models allow testing evolutionary hypotheses that in "real" life would take decades to accomplish or are impractical to run in wet lab or field. They also allow close control of relevant variables -- mutation rates, kinds of mutations, the topography of the fitness landscape, and a number of others, enabling parametric studies of the effects of those variables on evolutionary dynamics.”

If that means testable predictions can be made regarding quantitative aspects of population adaptation, then the simulations provide support to the hypothesis of common descent. Properly described, Avida (and similar simulations, if they exist) could find a place in this article, or so I’d like to think. Just plain Bill (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: another related article, Evolutionary Informatics Lab#Technical papers also cites Avida and Tiera criticism although unsourced. —Paleo Neonate – 02:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate length

An editor has objected to the article's length. However, it is a major subject, summarized here from many other articles; it is itself well summarized in its lead section; it is very clearly divided into chapters, each of which can be read independently for one line of evidence; and frankly it isn't exceptionally long as major articles go, and I include GAs and FAs in that comparison. There's not a lot of point in splitting it up as its purpose is exactly to gather in one place a summary of many independent lines of evidence, which are already dealt with in a wealth of evolutionary biology articles. Given the (enormous) amount of often highly technical evidence to be summarized, the article does an excellent job in presenting a brief and simple summary in a single place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. —Paleo Neonate – 20:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well. Plus, it makes it easier for readers to have one single source of information. I do think; however, that in the future, if some sections expand too large, an argument could be made for summarizing them and developing a separate article. I may eventually get around to doing so with the speciation section. But for the time being, it is good as is. The evidence for evolution is enormous, so this article gives a great snapshot of it. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Evidence of common descent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evidence of common descent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Kluge, Arnold G. (2000) source

Does anyone know the title to the source by Kluge, Arnold G. (2000) used as refs 59 and 62? I did extensive searching and could not find any publications in 2000 by this author. Unless I am missing something, the source is incorrect. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 01:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Then the refs need replaced (as they say in Scotland). Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I also failed to find the exact source. Close may be:

Kluge, Arnold G. (2001). "Parsimony with and without Scientific Justification" (PDF). Cladistics. 17 (2): 199–210. doi:10.1006/clad.2001.0164.
Kludge, Arnold G. (2001). "Philosophical Conjectures and Their Refutation". Systematic Biology. 50 (3). doi:10.1080/10635150119615.
Farris, James S.; Kluge, Arnold G.; Carpenter, James M. (2001). "Popper and Likelihood Versus "Popper*"". Systematic Biology. 50 (3): 438–444. doi:10.1080/10635150119150..

Partial biography also here in case it could help... —Paleo Neonate – 03:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it does not appear that the references used match those. The "Cladistics" source is close, but the second use of the source with the direct quote does not appear to exist. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have found it and have updated the references. Thanks for noticing the issue, —Paleo Neonate – 10:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Gene replication

Can I add a heading under "Genetics" for gene replication or should I just put it under "Other mechanisms"? I found a paper in Nature that analyzed the effects of evolution on gene replication and I think it would be the perfect proof of evolution.

--Wyrm127 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Wyrm127

@Wyrm127: Thanks for your interest in improving the article. I am not necessarily answering to your exact question, however I have audited your recent additions. I have a concern about a possible copyright violation (some text copied from other sites, please see WP:CV and WP:PARAPHRASE). Wikipedia articles should summarize sources in the editor's own words (and the editor's work be able to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License). Another is that evolutionarymodel.com appears to be a personal site (I also did not find the license of its text). Chosen sources should ideally be peer reviewed and secondary (please see WP:IRS). If there is uncertainty about if a source is suitable, we can also consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives or ask a new question there. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 12:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out. I have deleted the untrustworthy source (it listed its sources so it was unnecessary anyway) and tried to change my wording. There is more I probably need to change, but I think I got most of it. --Wyrm127 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04628-4 Wyrm127 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Title of the article

I am sure this proposal will be like beating a dead horse, but I really feel like the title of this article should be changed. It really is "Evidence of evolution". The vast majority of google hits, websites, publications, etc. refer to the content described in this article as "Evidence of/for evolution. Every textbook and even popular science books use that term. Very few sources use "Evidence of common descent". The reality is, readership of this article is extremely low compared to readership of Evolution. A quick look at the page view statistics shows evolution had 275k views in the past 90 days. Evidence of common descent had 40k. Dramatic difference. I know that is not entirely relevant, but it may be an indicator that readers aren't finding what they are looking for. Additionally, common descent is a "jargon" term that many people do not know. Evolution is a well known term (albeit a misunderstood one) and is what most people search. Further, it looks like the decision to move to its current name occurred 11 years ago, back before the article was packed with the info it has now. The scope of the article changed due to the broad nature of the topic in question. Here is what it looked like on April 3rd, 2007 when the proposal passed: far smaller, less comprehensive, and less inclusive of the broader scope we see in the version today. I say, lets move it to its most common, widespread usage Evidence of evolution, in accordance with policy. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support. "Common descent" has a Victorian era ring to it; and it's at best a circumlocution for "evolution", i.e. all species share a common ancestor so they must have evolved from it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Circumlocution: what a fantastic word to describe this! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - While I like its current name, I agree that the scope suits the proposed title: "Evidence of evolution". Other previous suggestions (from memory only) have been: "evidence of descent with modification", "evidence for evolution"; the proposed title seems to be short and to comply with WP:COMMONNAME. —Paleo Neonate – 06:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Support It seems to me that the current title is an instance of "bending over backwards" to avoid creation-evolution controversy, which is not a scientific debate. As a result the article is less discoverable due to the obscure title, which is a win for anti-evolutionists. The title "Evidence of evolution" would better describe the subject. Retimuko (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - The article is about common ancestry == common descent. Naturally, that is a big part of biological evolution as it is presently understood, but calling it "evidence for evolution" makes the focus a bit fuzzier. Also, notice where evidence for evolution redirects. If anyone has a hard time finding it, they aren't even trying. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here isn’t necessarily confusing the audience here, it’s really just using really overly-complicated terms here. You might’s well use “evolution” in place of “common descent” because that’s how the common English-speaker uses the word. If we always had to use the most scientifically accurate words in title-spaces, we’d have to move Toothed whale to Odontoceti because not all toothed whales are considered whales User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Just plain Bill: that's simply not true. The article is not just "about common ancestry == common descent." There are whole sections about selection (the mechanism of evolution), while the mathematical modeling section directly explores evolution. The evidence from coloration, too, shows what evolution can do, rather than just reconstructing a lineage. And so on. The article of course includes evidence of the origin of species - how should it not - but it is far wider than that, spanning the whole of evolution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is clearly about the wider scope of evolution. At the time of the original decision to rename the article to its current name, the article did not cover nearly as much as it does now. The scope changed, and rightly so, as the evidence of evolution is a widely discussed topic in popular scientific literature. As for lazy readers/searchers, it is not the search and redirect that matters. It is the fact that many of the links into the article use this current title. Readers may not click the link due to the jargonistic term of "common descent". Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would call it not so much a circumlocution as a valid synecdoche.

It could be reasonably argued that exploring the particulars of selection and speciation support the "common descent" thesis. Showing "what evolution can do" also adds credibility to the notion that a single prototype has led to the proliferation of species seen today. Yes, the overarching rubric is "evolution," but that term has become loaded with ideological baggage in the form of distracting connotations, which should be tangential to the present discussion; still it has been brought up here today. That said, I would literally hate to see this matter decided by what amount to political considerations. My honest assessment is "not broken, doesn't need fixing."

Fewer than 50 main-space pages link to this article. The first one I found is presented as "evidence that life has evolved". I would be willing to go through them and reduce the degree of jargon to a dull roar.

If the requested move does happen, the lead section will need serious re-writing to conform to the new title, at risk of being stirred into mush before rising again from the ashes in its new glorious form. As it now stands, the first three paragraphs frame the topic as "common descent." Before agreeing to the proposed move, I'd want to see a decent draft of the new lead that doesn't look as it it were stitched together in a lonely Bavarian tower during a thunderstorm. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead would not need much changing. It perfectly summarizes the article. And since 'common descent' and 'evolution' are largely the same thing, the context would remain the same with only a few syntax changes. Additionally, I don't believe the name change discussion is reduced to political considerations considering it is not currently in line with WP:COMMONNAME. I should note that the 2007 discussion to move it to its current name was based on three primary factors: the scope of the article at the time, for clarity, and the political context—a "POV-firestorm" as Robert Stevens put it. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support per WP:Common names User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Tossing some genetically-filled cold water into the mix, but this should be an RM, not a on-the-side talk page discussion. This question evolved, or descended commonly, from a proposal to change the name of the page. That is a topic for an RM. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. :) Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 08:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, Retimuko, Just plain Bill, Dunkleosteus77, Randy Kryn, and Azcolvin429: Please consider !voting again or copying your vote down: these were outside of the correct requested move discussion section. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 23:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, despite more people supporting the move. The question raised by opposers involved the scope of this article, and in my viewing the doubts weren't answered satisfactorily. Evidence of evolution exists as a possible title for a stand-alone article, and it seems like a split may be coming. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of common descent → Evidence of evolution – See discussion here. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 17:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Question, the text includes the wording "This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests". So if its only a part of the evidence, and not the total evidence contained within the discussions of the theory, why rename the page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The text before it talks about common descent so I suppose the rest might be natural selection or something User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There is more evidence for evolution than is possible to cover in an article (and new evidence will continue to be discovered, of course). Evidence of evolution is also evidence of common descent, so there is some overlap. The main concerns are that "evolution" is a more common name than "common descent", with the article scope going beyond descent. There is material related to natural selection (i.e. Evidence from selection). Some text will likely be altered to reflect the new title if the move succeeds, but those changes are expected to be minimal. —Paleo Neonate – 02:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a very good topic as is, and more tightly scoped than Evidence of evolution. But perhaps evidence of evolution should not redirect here? That's a broader topic, but probably already adequately covered in sections of other articles. Or perhaps a BCA is justified. Andrewa (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that on the matter of fact, the breadth of scope, that's straightforwardly mistaken: the article covers much that is not just about descent. On the procedural mechanism, we're already into a formal RM. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled as to what you think I said or meant... I agree that the article covers much that is not just about descent at present. That is, editors have (in good faith I assume) added material that is off-topic for the title, and redirected the broader term evidence of evolution here. The question then is, how to best resolve all of that? A move is one way, but that then leaves us without an article on evidence of common descent, and I think we do want one. A page has a history as well as a current content, and it seems to me that it's therefore best not to move this page, with its history, only to then create another article by that name in the fullness of time. SO, I'm (still) opposed to the move. This RM is the place to discuss such concerns, and doing so raises no procedural matter that I can see. Is that any clearer? Andrewa (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaning oppose. In theory, evolution could exist without there being common descent (for example, if there were multiple starts to life, and different branches evolved from different common ancestors), and common descent could even exist without evolution (for example, if one day a wizard cast a spell on a cat, which magically gave birth to a dog, and that's how dogs got started). bd2412 T 01:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if that were true (say), it would not oppose the proposed renaming, as the evidence in the article spans topics other than descent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Speculation about what could be is not entirely relevant, as the mismatch between the scope of the article and the title is the crux of the proposal, as well as the issue regarding the most common, widespread usage of the term. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 00:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My hypothetical was designed to avoid offending religious beliefs which propose that different species have common descent through divine intervention. bd2412 T 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Andrewa and BD2412. the narrower topic of evidence for common descent is sufficiently notable and there is enough to say on the topic, that it should remain as a standalone article. Evidence for other aspects of evolution can be dealt with in separate articles. Someone should ping those who participated in the earlier discussion so they can !vote here, since currently the RM does not include their !votes. — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Support - While I like its current name, I agree that the scope suits the proposed title: "Evidence of evolution". Other previous suggestions (from memory only) have been: "evidence of descent with modification", "evidence for evolution"; the proposed title seems to be short and to comply with WP:COMMONNAME. —Paleo Neonate – 06:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Support - Original requester. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 01:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support the argument that it’s a lot bigger than simply WP:Common names is very technical and semanticky. To basically everyone, evolution is the same as common descent User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support. While I admit that hypothetically it is conceivable to have more than one origin of life, all we really know is one common origin and one evolution. Let's not muddle this wonderful scientific fact using an unimportant technicality as an excuse. For all practical purposes "evidence of common descent" is just an obscure way of referring to "evidence of (or for) evolution". Retimuko (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support - this is plainly the direct title that describes the article's content. Common descent is a Victorian era phrase and its use here feels at best old-fashioned, at worst simply wrong because it does not cover all the types of evidence presented, for instance evidence for selection itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I note a previous move Dekimasu (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (40 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (moved Evidence of evolution to Evidence of common descent: moving per discussion on the talk page and request at WP:RM) but have not located either the RM or the other discussion noted in that edit summary.

There has as can be expected in this (surprisingly to me) controversial area been some interesting history, eg 19:09, 15 January 2011‎ Hoghead1 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (118,016 bytes) (+117,976)‎ . . (I believe the Article "Evidence of Common Desent" may confuse some people who are looking for Evolution but dont know that Common Desent is the same thing!) to justify a cut-and-paste move that was quickly reverted. (The user concerned here made few edits and has not been seen for some years now.) Andrewa (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Evidence of common descent/Archive 1#Proposed move. Not that I have any memory of moving this 11 years ago! Dekimasuよ! 02:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Or moving a page in a discussion I !voted in, for that matter, although the discussion was unanimous. I guess we have all evolved since then. Dekimasuよ! 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, after the 2007 decision, a user created a discussion with concerns about the change. Nobody commented on it, but their argument was justified in that, at the time, there was a mismatch between the content and the article title. Fast-forward to now, and the mismatch is huge in my opinion. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes... and hopefully we will now address this! As I see it, the overall question for this RM is, exactly how is it best to do that? So IMO it's important to consider what else should be done, depending on whether or not the move takes place, as part of that discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And hopefully, we will keep evolving, and Wikipedia will remain fit enough to itself survive. See User:Andrewa/The senility of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we’re getting a little too involved in the semantics here. This sounds like a distinction made by people who are already pretty well-versed in the topic, not a layman. Example: I’m a layman, and, after reading all this, I still have no idea what the difference between evolution and common descent is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Very well said. Andrewa (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing I feel that has not been addressed is the fact that "Evidence of common descent" is not the most common, widespread term whereas "evidence of evolution" is.

An anecdote: the bookshelf next to me contains 21 books that have the term "evidence of/for evolution" as a major section of the text. None have sections labeled "evidence of common descent, but some discuss the concept of common descent. Also, as a biology teacher, every year my students are taught a unit on evolution, with a large portion devoted to the "evidence of/for evolution" where many of the smaller topics in high school biology are addressed such as the fossil record, homology, phylogenetics, etc. The science standards, for example, refer to it as "evidence of evolution", though in contrast, some sources (such as the NGSS) use the term "evidence of common ancestry" or "evidence of common ancestry and diversity".

A google scholar search results finds 211 hits for "evidence of common descent", 5980 hits for "evidence of evolution", and 10500 hits for "evidence for evolution". A regular google search gets 65800 hits for "evidence of common descent", 7100000 hits for "evidence of evolution", and 851000 hits for "evidence for evolution". Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 00:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Although there are relevant items here and there, some sources about the evidence for evolution dedicate a particular section to predictive power and observation (or sometimes have two sections, prediction and observed), maybe that this article could also eventually have a similar section. It would not be to enumerate examples, would be in prose with citations; the lead's first sentence (which could remain the same) would be considered a summary of that section... —Paleo Neonate – 18:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring

I have reverted these edits for several reasons. The closer should IMO note the section #Title of the article and consider the arguments there, and nom referred to that discussion. The attempted (and I have no doubt well intended) refactoring was IMO both unhelpful and out of process.

Note that this RM was already in the elapsed listings section of WP:RM at the time of the reverted refactoring. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Just as a start, I think that there are two distinct topics, both deserving articles, Evidence of common descent and Evidence of evolution. And I think this article (probably as a result) currently does a very poor job of covering either topic in a way that's suitable for a general encyclopedia. It's going to be tricky to fix it, but for a start, are we agreed on the need to have two articles (which would each naturally link to the other)? Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

'Evidence of common descent' is logically a subsection or subtopic of 'Evidence of evolution', so if they were separate articles there would be an 'Evidence of common descent' section within the 'Evidence of evolution article, with a 'main' link and a summary of the common descent article. That would make the 'Evidence of evolution' article very similar (but a little shorter) to the current article, so for me the only question would be, is it really worth splitting out the subsection. The danger of such a split is WP:FORK as people could easily extend both articles in the same direction, and all the descent evidence could find a home in the evolution article. Might be better to call it 'evidence of evolution' and to leave it well alone, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with two articles. Firstly, that really does not address the issues at hand. Secondly, it requires a large amount of changes that are probably not necessary due to the fact that the current article covers pretty much everything that the major "evidence of evolution" literature covers (evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogeography, speciation, observed selection, etc.). Thirdly, "Evidence of common descent" and "Evidence of evolution" are so close to the same thing that they would, like Chiswick Chap stated, end up creating a content fork. What we need is a title change, and if you're inclined, a section discussing common descent specifically (though that is probably unnecessary as it could be easily woven throughout the text—as it usually is in other textual sources). Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 17:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

See article size guideline and page statistics for this article. I believe it makes sense to trim this article's scope to be consistent with its present title, and link it from a broader article on evidence for evolution. Having done this kind of thing before, I won't say it will be an easy task, but I am willing to put effort into it. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely recognize the enormous article size. I have always thought each section is almost deserving of its own article; however, the practicality of this is limited. What exactly would you propose splitting up? I still feel it would be lead to a fork. As a side note, because I work on speciation-related articles, I could slim down the speciation section substantially, linking to the parent articles that discuss the evidence (such as Evidence of speciation by reinforcement, Laboratory experiments of speciation, Allopatric speciation#Observational evidence, Peripatric speciation#Evidence, Speciation in the fossil record, User:Azcolvin429/speciation developments 2#Evidence, etc.). Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the sections on selection, coloration, and mathematical modeling seem to be only tangentially related to the topic of evidence for common descent. They are, of course, consistent with the thesis, but I see them as forms of indirect support.

It could be interesting to dig through the history with a focus on when each section appeared, since some of the first sections (in the TOC) address descent explicitly, while others mention evolution in general. Not sure if that is essential, though. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origin of Species

The article as it stands is far from focused on Evidence of evolution. I just did a search on Origin in the current text, and it does appear... but sparsely and deeply buried.

Surely, as the foundational text on the subject, it deserves a little more coverage? But I'm afraid that's typical of this (surprisingly to me) controversial subject. See my (perhaps rather POV in a third direction) essay at

http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/127705559/Origin%20of%20Species%20vs%20the%20Bible

and if you're committed to either Evolutionism or Creationism (two excellent and balanced articles there, just BTW), take your sense of humour with you (and maybe also a stiff drink or whatever works for you).

Anyway, if we're to strike a balance in an article on Evidence of evolution, this article would need a lot of work, to the point that perhaps it's easier to start again. Which confirms my earlier impressions. Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind Evolution and History of evolutionary thought still exist and Origin of Species is given due over on that way. Let's not get too caught up with semantics here, this is just discussing what evidence there is that evolution has happened, and there's a lot of it outside Darwin's barnacles User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, our overall coverage of it is good. But that's not the question here... the question here is, what should the general reader find in an article with the title Evidence of evolution (or for that matter Evidence of common descent)? And for an article (proposed to be) called Evidence of evolution to be so lopsidedly dedicated to recent research is not terribly helpful to the general reader. It makes sense if we're preparing a pamphlet promoting a particular POV, but not an article for a general encyclopedia.

Sorry if that's a bit harsh! The area is a minefield in that all interested editors probably struggle with some sort of POV, self included. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia does have academic bias, but that's how it should be, of course. There's also no point in transforming the article into a history of evolution one, we have other articles for that. What's wrong with recent research? Except if we relied on bleeding-edge primary sources, we of course should instead use reviews of well accepted research... —Paleo Neonate – 01:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with academic bias.

Nobody is proposing transforming the article into a history of evolution.

Nothing is wrong with recent research.

The question is just what a general reader wants to find at the titles under consideration. Our articles on relativity and calculus strike a good balance. And so should this one. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your comment, and for stating the obvious (as an administrator you must know what Wikipedia is about). I still disagree about drasticly changing the scope of the article, however (for more context we have: evolution, introduction to evolution, outline of evolution, history of evolutionary thought, evolutionary history of life, timeline of the evolutionary history of life, evolution as fact and theory (only relevant since this article deals with evidence), and of course {{Evolutionary biology}})... —Paleo Neonate – 20:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well if you're really worried about a confused reader, we could always just stick to the top {{Further|History of evolutionary thought}} User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be a workaround, I guess, and would lessen the damage certainly. But best IMO is to simply match the article title to its content and/or vice versa, and that's also been our policy to date. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the original question. As the title, "Evidence of Common Descent", this is implying the same as "Evidence of Natural Selection, Evolution, etc.", because these are all related to the same topic. So if a third-party chooses to look up any topic related to Evolution, Natural Selection; they should be funneled to the same general section and articles. This is important in terms of presenting an unbiased approach, in which only scientific, clinical, quantitatively proven experience is used to present a viewpoint. Marcmatossian (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Absence of metabolic processes in fossils

Shouldn’t the phrase “Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils ...” read, “Since metabolic processes do not exist in fossils ...”? Jon Mark Oliver (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of coloration

Can anyone say me how the section of Evidence of common descent#Camouflage is a reference of common descent. I mean why it is in here? Fahim fanatic (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the {{help me}} because this is a page-specific question with a rather large number of page watchers. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

To reply to the question, you will see (higher up this page) that there has been a large discussion about the title of the article, and it's been agreed that the evidence covers what might be considered two or even three questions: whether evolution has occurred; whether it has been driven by natural selection; and whether it has caused lineages to divide (looking forwards), or equivalently (looking backwards) whether all lineages join up to form a single tree and thus have, in Darwin's 19th century phrase, 'common descent'. The evidence from coloration convinced many evolutionary biologists that evolution was indeed driven by natural selection. Should we ever change our collective mind and decide to split the article into two (with a common lineage) then it will go in the selection half. Until then, it's a single article and the material belongs here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Correction to Figure 2a Caption

The caption under Figure 2a mentions 2 whales that had hindlegs. However it appears the caption confuses the 2 events. Specifically, the first sentence in the caption under Figure 2a says “In July 1919, a humpback whale was caught by a ship operating out of Vancouver that had legs 4 ft 2 in (1.27 m) long”, and that sentence is followed by a hyperlink leading to an article by Roy Chapman. The second sentence in that same caption says: “This image shows the hindlegs of another humpback whale reported in 1921 by the American Museum of Natural History”, with no supporting hyperlink. However, the PDF file hyperlinked after the first sentence in the caption seems to clearly be describing the 1921 Humpback whale and not the 1919 whale, and Figure 2a is exactly the same as the figure shown in the 1921 Roy Chapman article. I recommend the caption be corrected to say “In July 1919, a humpback whale was caught by a ship that had hindlegs. In 1921 another humpback whale was caught by a ship operating out of Vancouver. This image shows the hindlegs on that whale that were 4 ft 2 in (1.27 m) long as reported by the American Museum of Natural History”, and the existing hyperlink be moved from after the first sentence to the end of the caption. It would be appreciated if more definitive information (hyperlink?) supporting the 1919 whale could be provided, but sans that additional information, I would either delete the mention of the 1919 whale, or at least limit the caption to no more than a mention of the 1919 whale with hindlegs.ThePhyBD (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Brian Davis, 25 May, 2019.