User talk:KyoPa

Welcome to Bulbapedia, KyoPa!

Thank you for joining our community! By creating an account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. This is a brief introduction to Bulbapedia's rules and resources to help you get started: All users are expected to follow the code of conduct and to be kind to one another. If you have a question, check out our FAQ; the manual of style provides detailed editing guidance, and the wikicode page provides details about how to use wikicode. You can always ask for help by contacting a staff member. Please preview your edits before saving them; this helps you double-check your changes and reduces the need for repeated minor edits. Use talk pages to discuss changes and resolve editing disputes. Creating a userpage is allowed after you've added to the encyclopedia; for more details, see the userspace policy. Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~) so people know who is commenting. This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment. For more handy links and information, check out the welcome portal.

Thank you, and have a good time editing here!   -- evkl (need to talk?) 19:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Diglett

ForceFire has told you twice now that We know very little about Wigglett to come to this cobclusion. Don't add it again or this can be seen as edit warring and insubordination and may lead to a block.--BigDocFan, Junior Admin Bulbapedia (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies that I saw this message afterwards, but as I said, I'm not drawing any conclusions. I've given an official source where the information is coming from. I'm not adding any new information. The only thing I'm doing is putting a label on the process that is already being described in said official source. For example, if something is described as "a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations", then it's not too early of a conclusion to label that process as "evolution".

It's not an issue of knowing too little, but an issue of tip-toeing around using real-world terminology because they haven't used the exact same terminology yet, even though they described the meaning of said terminology; which seems pedantic. No one disagrees if a Pokemon with explicitly canine traits is labelled as a "dog", even though it hasn't officially been described as a "dog", so I don't see why that shouldn't be the case here as well.--KyoPa (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the English subtitles given in the video, you'd be right that it's describing convergent evolution. But the Japanese line spoken for the "coincidence" line phrases it as a theory only. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That shouldn't affect anything, as the only thing that will disprove that 'theory' is if the two species turn out to be distantly related (which will turn it into a case of "parallel evolution"), but that is highly unlikely.

According to real-world evolution, when two unrelated species develop functionally similar traits, that's called "convergent evolution" (even birds and bats are considered a case of convergent evolution). And we're given two unrelated Pokemon with explicitly similar traits, so I don't understand the issue with calling it what it is.

The page for regional form likens itself to the real-world divergent evolution of "peripatric speciation", and "convergent evolution" is arguably a much more general concept with less specifications than "peripatric speciation". Is there some bias against the term "convergent evolution" that I'm not understanding?--KyoPa (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)