“The debate over Darwin's ideas did not generate significant controversy in China.” Why is this odd comment slapped onto the end of the intro? Sounds like couched nationalism to me. Alexandermoir (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the last sentence in the article, and sounds weird there too.Newzild (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a large academic study summarized in a sentence. If you want to be bold, you could read the paper in full (it is available via JSTOR or The Wikipedia Library) and add a fuller account. Wikipedia should cover details from all over the world, so Chinese reactions to the theory should not simply be ignored. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multicellulary arosed much longer than the Ediacaran. The fossils of Bangiomorpha Pubescens and Proterocladus Antiquus are undoubtly considered pluricellular algae, and are 1 billion years old and there are also the fossils of Rafatazmia and Ramathallus which are also considered algae. Why my edits are being reverted? The page already shows a graph in which multicellulary is shown having appeared 1,5 billion years ago.

DaComputer (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem the original material was clearly confused. I replaced it with cited material from History of life, but I don't think your additions as such are needed in what is meant to be a very brief summary. Remsense ‥ 论 18:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have no specific concerns, I'll ping @T g7, the first evidently qualified active editor who came to mind, to double-check my tweaks here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current version of the article as of 02:30 UTC 6 Feb, after Remsense's changes. Thank you. T g7 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the most important thing was that the huge error in the page was corrected --DaComputer (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t we call this page “evolutionism” if we call another page “creationism” because if we don’t we commit the fallacy of special pleading. 2601:280:5000:77F0:2849:3516:6241:D735 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the FAQ does not specifically answer the IP editor's question, I will address it directly. IP editor, your question is answered here. ZergTwo (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we follow what mainstream sources say. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence of the environment it has lived in.[27] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation—when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[29]

Should be changed to: An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype, and the influence of the environment it has lived in.[27] The modern evolutionary synthesis^[1] defines evolution as "the change over time in this genetic variation". The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation; when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[29]

Some minor grammatical changes as well as citing as source when using the phrase "defines evolution as" Jake7460 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:

• No need to add a comma there in the first sentence. (don't change the style when it's not necessary)
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• The clause after the dash explains what point of fixation means. (the semicolon marks a division of a sentence like a comma, which is not quite the purpose of this dash)

Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phenotype of an organism is determined by its genotype. Sometimes the genotype may be programmed to respond to environmental factors such as when bacterial genes can be activated in the presence of some food sources but the vast majority of phenotypes are unaffected by the environment.

Most people are only concerned about very visible phenotypes in large animals and they tend to be influenced by classic examples in the textbooks. But this is a general article on evolution and we should strive to avoid introducing those common biases. Remember that phenotype also refers to the activity of the enzymes required for transcription, the position of cilia in protozoans, and the amount of junk DNA in a genome.

Also, keep in mind that almost all changes in allele frequencies are due to random genetic drift and not natural selection. If you keep reminding ourself of this fact you can avoid introducing unconscious biases into this article. Genome42 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]