Pokemon Evolution (Some Actual Science)
April 14, 2026 2026-04-14 12:47Pokemon Evolution (Some Actual Science)
Pokemon Evolution (Some Actual Science)
This fallacy seems to ring out from every corner of the internet — or, at least the corners that feel compelled to discuss the nuanced science behind Pokémon, the pocket-monster phenomenon that has grossed over $55 billion since 1996 in card games, multimedia, and microtransactions. To put that into context, Pokémon is recognized as the highest grossing franchise of all time, dwarfing properties like Star Wars and Harry Potter by the tens-of-billions.
So these nuanced corners of the Internet? They’re popular, and they’re all calling foul when it comes to a simple mechanic that’s remained fundamental to the franchise for 21+ years: evolution.
I don’t necessarily feel compelled to spell out the mechanics at work here, you probably know what’s up.
But you know who does feel compelled?! Forbes Magazine who in 2016 explained that “the game could also have a negative effect on science education” because of the misuse of that golden word, “evolution.” And this isn’t an isolated problem; I could cite Inverse Entertainment or this scientific paper or blog post after blog post that delve into detailed critique of the term evolution being wrongfully used in the context of Pokémon’s narrative.
And honestly, this critique is boring. These writers look at a children’s game and argue that it doesn’t adhere to actual science — which is an easy and technically correct assertion to make.
But what if it did adhere to science? What if in Pokémon, “evolution” was actually just that, in the truest sense of the word.
Things get cool. And we learn some stuff!
