Talk:Evidence of common descent

Avida

I recently reintroduced it but am opening this thread in case someone has objections. The new material is shorter and part of an older relevant section. Although creationist apologetics that previously questioned it were invalid, the previous text may well have been undue in its earlier state. The old discussion was here and the previous text here. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

simulations are mathematical models   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Avida is not a simulation. It is an instance of genetic programming, whose programs are self-replicating. The evolution that happens in Avida is as real as any other instance of evolution. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a fine point, but running a computer system to explore how natural systems may be functioning is simulation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a correct observation, and a verifiable one. The source documentation makes this distinction. Quite a number of the publications and public notice associated with Avida and Avida-ED make this distinction. Your assertion, on the other hand, appears to be quite unverifiable and a possible violation of WP:POV. If you have altered pages based on your incorrect understanding, I will revert or correct them. I would ask you to refrain from engaging in any edit war to push a false, unverifiable claim.

Example citations showing verifiability of the "Avida is not a simulation" statement include Testing Darwin by Carl Zimmer About Avida

From that last link to the Avida documentation's 'About' page, there is this:

According to Daniel Dennett, "...evolution will occur whenever and wherever three conditions are met: replication, variation (mutation), and differential fitness (competition)"[Dennett2002]. It seems to be an obvious idea to set up these conditions in a computer, and to study evolution in silico rather than in vitro. In a computer, it is easy to measure any quantity of interest with arbitrary precision, and the time it takes to propagate organisms for several hundred generations is only limited by the processing power available. In fact, population geneticists have long been carrying out computer simulations of evolving loci, in order to test or augment their mathematical theories (see [HartlClark2006, KimStephan2003, McVeanCharlesworth2000, Nowak2006, Orr2000] for some examples). However, the assumptions put into these simulations typically mirror exactly the assumptions of the analytical calculations. Therefore, the simulations can be used only to test whether the analytic calculations are error-free, or whether stochastic effects cause a system to deviate from its deterministic description, but they cannot test the model assumptions on a more basic level.

An approach to studying evolution that lies somewhere in between evolution experiments with biochemical organisms and standard Monte-Carlo simulations is the study of self-replicating and evolving computer programs (digital organisms). These digital organisms can be quite complex and interact in a multitude of different ways with their environment or each other, so that their study is not a simulation of a particular evolutionary theory but becomes an experimental study in its own right.

The distinction between a simulation and an instance of evolution is not an incidental, post-hoc consideration. It is part of the design principles of Avida and is there to correct the identified deficiencies in existing simulation approaches. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure about how references are handled in Talk pages, so here is the info to go with the ref citations I provided earlier:

Pennock, Robert T. (2007). "Models, simulations, instantiations, and evidence: the case of digital evolution". Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. 19 (1): 29–42. doi:10.1080/09528130601116113. ISSN 0952-813X.

Kohn, Cory; Wiser, Michael J.; Pennock, Robert T.; Smith, James J.; Mead, Louise S. (2018). "A digital technology-based introductory biology course designed for engineering and other non-life sciences STEM majors". Computer Applications in Engineering Education. 26 (5): 1227–1238. doi:10.1002/cae.21986. ISSN 1061-3773. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Primitive reflexes

I only did a few text searches but I think this isn't included in the current article. Not unlike discoveries in embriology, these are also good evidence of evolution and adaptations/inheritance from the past. —PaleoNeonate – 06:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Now added, —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Scientific Reports appears to have inconsistent peer review, resulting in a mix of reliable and less reliable papers, it would probably be useful to also find other sources to support this section... Input welcome as always, —PaleoNeonate – 03:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Argument from evolution" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Argument from evolution. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#Argument from evolution until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The recurrent laryngeal nerve and mammals

At the moment when introducing the laryngeal nerve it says: "The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a fourth branch of the vagus nerve, which is a cranial nerve. In mammals, its path is unusually long." So is its path shorter in reptiles or birds? Why specify mammals rather than saying for example: "all non-fish animals" or some such? 2603:8080:5700:1C56:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "In tetra-pods" would be appropriate? I just don't understand why we want to specify mammals when the characteristic seems present in all fish descended non gill bearing animals as far as I can tell... I don't want to change it without first understanding if it's the way it is for a reason. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Science

One that suggested the possibility of common descent based on the presence of vestigial organs 45.202.16.75 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)