Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology

Evolutionary developmental biology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 2, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Developmental Drive was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 December 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Evolutionary developmental biology. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iworrell2018 (article contribs).

No Mention of Turing?[edit]

I wanted to refresh my memory on Turing's contribution to this field. My understanding is that he and I believe D'Arcy Thompson wrote at least one paper where they essentially mapped out some of the core ideas: that constraints from math, physics, etc. shaped the type of phenotypes that could result from changes to genotype. I may be saying that wrong, Biology isn't my field, but I know I've seen several mentions that Turing wrote about the basic ideas of evo-devo many years before it was rediscovered and became an active field of biology. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turing wrote a paper on how in theory patterns (in fur or feathers) could appear. Much later, evo-devo found that he'd broadly guessed correctly. Thompson (already in the article) didn't believe in evolution, which could be seen as a small problem in making him a father of evo-devo; he wanted to show that body shapes arose spontaneously, rather than through biochemical mechanisms under natural selection. I suppose if we're going to go back to the beginning, whatever that is, we'd start with Aristotle, who speculated that bodies come into being through a selection of parts; this most likely meant embryonic development (ontogeny) not phylogeny, i.e. after conception the appropriate parts are selected (from some non-physical space?) and assembled. I'm not sure any of this is exactly evo-devo, more the history of biology, but perhaps a brief paragraph of 'Precursors' or 'Historical background' would not go amiss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]