Evolution/FAQ

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

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

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

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

To view the explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

• Q1: Should evolution be described as if it were "proven"? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. To the degree our current technology allows us to derive the testable facts, evolution is confirmed and "proven". Once again, this depends on how one is defining proof. Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to a proposition that has been shown to be 100% certain and logically necessary; in other uses, it simply refers to a proposition that is well-supported (much like the colloquial meaning of fact). In the first sense, evolutionary theory is not proven. However, this is because nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on unproven assumptions about the world around us. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence. In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well-supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution. Main article: Evidence of evolution

• Q2: Should the article assert that evolution has been observed? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over billions (1,000,000,000s) of years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales. However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action. Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies. Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the fish tilapia, the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas, and the peppered moth. A new species of mosquito has even evolved in the London Underground system since it opened. Scientists have observed large changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model. The inferences upon which evolution is based have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution. So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution. Main article: Evidence of evolution

• Q3: Should the article describe the theory of evolution here as if it were a fact? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. The "theory of evolution" is well-defined, well-researched, long-tested, widely-accepted and should be described as the theory and the facts that support the theory. Evolution is not a theory in the sense used on Evolution; rather, it is a fact. This is because the word evolution is used here to refer to the observed process of the genetic composition of populations changing over successive generations. Because this is simply an observation, it is considered a fact. It depends on if your use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense. Unfortunately, all of these words have at least two meanings. For example, evolution can either refer to an observed process (covered at evolution), or, as a shorthand for evolutionary theory, to the explanation for that process (covered at modern evolutionary synthesis). To avoid confusion between these two meanings, when the theory of evolution, rather than the process/fact of evolution, is being discussed, this will usually be noted by explicitly using the word theory. Fact has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to any well-supported proposition; in scientific usage, it refers to a confirmed observation. For example, in the scientific sense, "apples fall if you drop them" is a fact, but "apples fall if you drop them because of a curvature in spacetime" is a theory. Gravity can thus either refer to a fact (the observation that objects are attracted to each other) or a theory (general relativity, which is the explanation for this fact). Evolution is the same way. As a fact, evolution is an observed biological process; as a theory, it is the explanation for this process. What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well-supported it is. When evolution is shorthand for "evolutionary theory", evolution is indeed a theory. However, phrasing this as "just a theory" is misleading. Theory has two different meanings: in colloquial usage, it refers to a conjecture or guess; in scientific usage, it refers to a well-supported explanation or model for observed phenomena. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense, not in the former. Thus, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity and plate tectonics are theories. The currently accepted theory of evolution is known as modern evolutionary synthesis. Template:Further

• Q4: Should the article provide any criticisms or objections to evolution? (No.)
A4: No. Criticisms or objections to evolution should not be added to this article. The article already delegates the bulk of many sections to other articles and it is still rather lengthy. Criticisms or objections to evolution, because of their long and complex history, would dilute the quality of the article which is focused on the results of hard-science research. This prohibition is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. For example, if two contradictory views in physics are held by roughly an equal number of physicists, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". On the other hand, if one view is held by 99% of physicists and the other by 1%, then Wikipedia should favor the former view throughout its physics articles; the latter view should receive little, if any, coverage. To do otherwise would require, for example, that we treat belief in a Flat Earth as being equal to other viewpoints on the figure of the Earth. Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, the Evolution article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as Creation–evolution controversy give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as Evolution do not. Template:Further

• Q5: Should the article assert that evolution is controversial, and thus "teach the controversy"? (No.)
A5: No. Evolution controversies should not be added to this article. As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. The fact that evolution occurs and the ability of modern evolutionary theory to explain why it occurs are not controversial amongst biologists. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and/or ID. In 1987 only about 0.15% of American earth and life scientists supported creationism. Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view. However, while the overall theory of evolution is not controversial in that it is the only widely-accepted scientific theory for the diversity of life on Earth, certain aspects of the theory are controversial or disputed in that there actually are significant disagreements regarding them among biologists. These lesser controversies, such as over the rate of evolution, the importance of various mechanisms such as the neutral theory of molecular evolution, or the relevance of the gene-centered view of evolution, are, in fact, covered extensively in Wikipedia's science articles. However, most are too technical to warrant a great deal of discussion on the top-level article Evolution. They are very different from the creation–evolution controversy, however, in that they amount to scientific disputes, not religious ones. Template:Further

• Q6: Should the article provide any scientific evidence against evolution? (No.)
A6: No. There is no scientific evidence against evolution. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims. The latter, on the other hand, even when accurate, is irrelevant. The fact that not everything is fully understood doesn't make a certain proposition false; that is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Examples of claimed evidence against evolution: There aren't any transitional fossils, or there aren't enough. There are many transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx (earliest and most primitive bird known), Thrinaxodon (a cat-sized mammal-like "reptile"), Tiktaalik (fish with many features akin to those of four-legged animals), Acanthostega (first vertebrate animal to have recognizable limbs), and Ambulocetus (early whale that could walk as well as swim). See also List of transitional fossils. That there are not more is explained by the rarity of fossilization and by punctuated equilibrium. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium". Organisms are not isolated systems. Rather, they are open systems; they exchange energy with their environment, and thus their entropy can either increase or decrease. Specifically, the main fuel source for evolution is the Sun, which is continually adding energy to the Earth ecosystem. See also Entropy and life. Evolution can't create complex structures like the eye, or the bacterial flagellum. The evolution of the eye and the evolution of flagella are well-understood, and "irreducibly complex" structures can evolve through mechanisms such as exaptation, in which a structure is adapted to serve a different function. Moreover, the fact that the evolutionary history of every biological structure is not fully understood is not evidence against evolution, any more than the fact that the gravitational orbit of every astronomical body is not fully understood is evidence against gravity. Evolution can't create new information. New information is created every time a mutation occurs. Even random "noise" is a form of information. (This random information is then non-randomly propagated by natural selection.) Examples of the evolution of completely new information include the enzymes of nylon-eating bacteria, which can digest nylon, a polymer that didn't exist before 1935. With regard to the Wikipedia Evolution article, if there is any evidence against evolution, it has yet to be accepted by any peer-reviewed scientific publication. This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.

• Q7: Should the article differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution? (No.)
A7: No. While distinct Microevolution and Macroevolution articles exist, this article's scope is such that they should be treated as the same underlying mechanism. The article doesn't equate the two, but merely recognizes that they are largely or entirely the same process, just on different scales. The great majority of modern evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger timescale; all fields of science accept that small ("micro") changes can accumulate to produce large ("macro") differences, given enough time. Most of the topics covered in the evolution article are basic enough to not require an appeal to the micro/macro distinction. Consequently, the two terms are not equated, but simply not dealt with much. A more nuanced version of the claim that evolution has never been observed is to claim that microevolution has been directly observed, while macroevolution has not. However, that is not the case, as speciations, which are generally seen as the benchmark for macroevolution, have been observed in a number of instances.

• Q8: Should the article provide an explanation for the origin of life? (No.)
A8: No. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. The development of life from non-organic matter through abiogenesis, is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life anymore than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

• Q9: Should the article assert that evolution occurs purely by chance? (No.)
A9: No. Evolution occurs through natural selection, which is overall a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties - the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms. If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

See also Evolution Objections to evolution Creation–evolution controversy

Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Evolution: The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that evolution is controversial. NPOV disputed Accuracy of Blanket Statement Neutrality dispute NPOV Dispute Neutrality based on factualness of evolution Heavy evolutionist bias POV Issue No overwhelming scientific consensus The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section. Criticism section Alternative Views Uhh... ok... Neutral point of view Balance? Balancing point of view Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. Bickering Evolution as fact Fact vs. Theory Evolution vs. Theory of Evolution Newton's Theory Fact versus theory POV Theory Lack of Neutrality POV There is scientific evidence against evolution. Macro/Micro "Matter cannot organize itself" Proposed insertions Scientific problems with Evolution

References