Talk:Microevolution

message: * http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-8071%28190901%2947%3A1%3C30%3AAVMATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
* http://www.jstor.org/pss/2466778
Botanical Gazette 1909 vol.47:
Robert Greenleaf Levitt
"...The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may ascertain the facts, but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in any significant measure. This MICROEVOLUTION forms an integral part of the grand evolution problem and lies at the base of it, so that we shall have to understand the minor process before we can thoroughly comprehend the more general one."
pp 67-68:
"Whatever be the basis assumed for an explanation of the microevolution which we call ontogenesis-- whether the existence of
special form-controlling bodies, or the general properties of the organic molecules, or organ-forming stuffs capable of diffusion, or some other basis-- the abrupt diversion of formative currents and transformation of members into others of usually dissimilar origin, the frequent appearance of forms in locations not expected in the ordinary sequence of development, and the potentiality of all parts in each part, indicated by the general phenomenon which we have been
calling homoeosis, will need to be provided for in our ultimate theory of development."TongueSpeaker (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: I think I'm seeing the word evolution being used with two different meanings, and I think these meanings are sufficiently different that they should be highlighted rather than glossed over. They are NOT synonyms.
#Evolution means ANY genetic difference between an organism and its descendant.
#Evolution means the theory that new species can and do come into being, purely as a result of natural forces
In sense #1, Creationists would clearly be wrong if they said "no evolution ever takes place", because there are readily observable genetic differences.
In sense #2, Creationists would not necessarily be wrong if they said "no evolution ever takes place", because there is no proof that natural forces alone are sufficient to cause new species to come into being.
Indeed the idea that natural forces alone are sufficient to cause new species to come into being is arguably not even a "scientific hypothesis", because there's no way to falsify it -- unless and until somebody succeeds in creating a new species in the laboratory (shades of Frankenstein!). --Uncle Ed 14:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I'm wrong, of course {slaps forehead impatiently}. If someone creates a new species, that's creation by design, not naturalistic evolution. So how could we possibly ever "falsify" the theory of evolution? What kind of experiment could we perform, the results of which (if they turned out a certain way) would prove evolution false? --Uncle Ed 14:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you identify a single anatomical feature, of any species, that could not have evolved gradually (that is, the entire subsystem had to have appeared all at once or not at all) that would falsify natural selection as the only evolutionary mechanism theory.  Many people have looked for examples of such features but none proposed so far have been unexplainable by natural selection (ie, a fraction of an eye still sees better than no eye at all, and tiny "wings" on an insect aren't great at controlling flight but might be good radiators). Saucepan 15:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The theory as you stated cannot be falsified, since that's a very general statement and requires a very high burden of proof. The theory of evolution as understood by modern science can, of course, be falsified. There have been some significant challenges, for example the problem of genetic load was a major one for evolution and there is some debate as to how well-settled this question is. Graft 15:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say that (2) cannot be falsified. Just that it would be enormously difficult to do so. The position of biologists and scientists in general is that there are naturalistic explanations for all phenomenon. This is a fundamental assumption of science; to assume otherwise would be to forestall the possibility of further scientific inquiry. See the long discussion on Talk:Intelligent design for more. Graft 17:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The term evolution

message: Hi Duncharris,
Why did you delete the example of the primrose plant?
Regards,
--Jason Gastrich 22:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jason.  Can you offer a citation for that please?  specifically we are referring to "the primrose plant spontaneously producing another species of primrose plant".  Your wording doesn't make much sense to me as a biologist.  — Dunc|☺ 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting choice of citation from Jason.  i think we all assumed he was discussing mutations in Primula specifically the well documented allopolyploid species known as the Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) created by Digby (The citology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. (1912). Ann Bot 26, 357-388) from a cross between Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda. After a rare polyploidization event the initially sterile hybrid led to a fertile allotetraploid, the new species P. kewensis. I think we agree this is an example of macroevolution.  However, Jason did not cite this example.  His cite is for evening primrose which is NOT a primrose it is Oenothera.  Actually, that example sounds like it is a good example of microevolution, although there needs to be more clarification in the edits.  From the source that Jason cites: "Hugo De Vries  discovered new forms among a display of Evening Primrose Oenothera lamarcklana growing wild in a waste meadow............. The name "mutation" was given to his new method of producing new species and varieties (cultivars) which he showed to arise unexpectedly."  David D. (Talk) 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primrose 

message: This thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
states that Micro Evolution occured in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1911, citing the American Naturalist v. 45, p. 256. The first for "macro-evolution" is Dobzhansky's "Genetics & Origin of Species". Was Micro coined before Macro? TongueSpeaker 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First occurance of Micro Evolution

message: How is Marcroevolution not Reductionist in that it is mostly, if not entirely, dependent upon Mircoevolution?
Why is this supposed dichotomous distinction even trying to be postulated?
--Carlon 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro-Reductionist vs. Macro-Holistic 

message: I am mildly astonished that Wikipedia even has this article.
"Evolution" is change in allele frequency over time in a breeding population.  No more, no less.  It is the unified field theory of biology, and it parsimoniously explains everything from antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the beak of the zebra finch to humanity's triumphant conquest of this planet.
"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are shibboleths used by religious cranks who object to the philosophical implications of certain empirically verified facts from the fields of biology and zoology.  Worse, they are casuistries, created to deceive the ignorant.
Is it too late for a VFD?
:Both are long-running, though not necessarily notable, terms used to refer to process of Evolution taking place over different periods of time/over different levels. The first reference in the article has some more info on how they came to be. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist shibboleth, no more, no less 

message: Dude, You are not summarizing the quote, you are in fact quoting it directly. Summary means that you give the gist of what the quote is saying. Your understanding of the quote is also a little off. Also, you keep creating a second section for "Usage in 1927" when it is completely unnecessary. Please stop. --Woland (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote and tonguespeaker 

message: ...I study medicine and like to think I know my biology. To the best of my knowledge, there is no distinction between the process of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" in modern genetics. Isn't "macroevolution" simply a non-scientific term for "a lot of" microevolution. The biological process is the same. In Microevolution vs Macroevolution, Austin Cline explains this common misconception. Now, I might be missing something, but is it possible this article was created by those American "creationists" (or whatever they call themselves) trying to account for the variety of dog breeds? :P If so, an AfD might be a good idea. I imagine anything sensible can easily be included in the main Evolution article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some evolutionary biologists do actually make a distinction between micro and macroevolution (i.e. relatively small changes verses speciation events). The terms have been co-opted and misused by creationists but the primary literature does use both terms in a scientific fashion. A quick google scolar search easily shows this.--Woland (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I haven't been reading much on it lately, but if I recall it is a little bit more complicated than a scale issue, but I have no doubt that your understanding is better than my layman's. There is some mention of them essentially being the same process in the beginning of the article that could be expanded upon (possibly with a  summary of the macro article).  I understand your concerns about creationists (believe me...) but I'm not sure if  we need  to try and defend the concept from their attacks (especially if its unsourced). Sourced material about this could work though.--Woland (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Creationist say they are for the evolution within a species. i.e. humans can change, but they are always humans. A dog can change, but not into a bird. Most of them consider microevolution the best description of this, but almost all of the proponents of this asterisk it with, "or small changes within a species". What would be the better scientific term for this if not "microevolution"? (I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm seriously seeking the answer. Thanks!) --Trainwrecka (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the explanation. It is not about "believing" in that mechanism - it happens. What takes a good amount of belief is mutating from a bird to a human, or fish to an elephant - it doesn't matter how many millions of years are thrown in. Creationist, intelligent design theorist, and anyone else who saw holes in the evolutionary theory were looking for better answers to the origin of life. These holes may not be there for you, but they are obviously there for some. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, though I do like to have my terminology as correct as possible. Thank you again for your speedy response.--Trainwrecka (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the position Creation Scientists (Or psudoscientists) take is that Microevolution consists of recombination of existing traits to produce new traits, while Macroevolution involves the creation of entirely new information. They would claim that this does not happen, and that the variation we see actually consists of the loss or isolation of traits that existed in the original creation. The article as written doesn't say why Creationists make a distinction between the two. --Eleazar son of Dodai (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And there can be no evolution until life is created, and how that happens is a different subject that we call abiogenesis, not evolution. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: "Also, only creationists "never budge" - because the bible never gets updated" - In very much the same way that the current scientific orthodoxy never budge from an increasingly troubled theory of Darwinian evolution because the doctrine of naturalism never gets reviewed. What is the evidence base for a mandate of naturalism? Absolutely none. It is utilised as a primary principle and thus determines the very paradigms and standards for evidential assessment, such that, were you to use "evidence" to try and prove it, you'd be arguing in a circle. When primary principles are expressed and utilised overtly, it is religion. If primary principles are mandated or imposed unknowingly upon a subject, such as a scientific orthodoxy that blatantly denies any absolutistic or religious root to their consensi, it is indoctrination.109.156.110.166 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, this isn't the place to discuss the topic. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. If you'd like to propose improvements to the article, please be specific about what you'd like to change and provide reliable sources. Jesstalk|edits 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, wait... 

message: The one about the American Association for the Advancement of Science - it just links to their press release page, which no longer references what the article says.  I briefly looked for a direct link but was unsuccessful Fcrick (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference link needs an update 

message: Why is the validly referenced definition for Microevolution that I sourced from Webster's New World College Dictionary being removed?  I think you guys need to look at WP:VERIFY and WP:V before you remove a reference....--Gniniv (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A lay definition is less useful than the expert subject matter definition already provided. Since you seem to be misinterpreting that lay interpretation, your pushing for it is hardly neutral. . dave souza, talk 08:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've written elsewhere today, dictionaries are bad sources sometimes, particularly with technical/scientific issues. We clearly have better sources and should not be using Webster's. And this section heading is a personal attack on other editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Are you sure you are ready to be commenting so frequently? You can visit WP:RSN and put "talkorigins" in the search archives box at the top to see some of the many previous discussions that have established the reliability of the source. You should not attempt to simultaneously discuss the same topic (whether a general purpose dictionary has information that is helpful for a scientific article) at more than one page. Please see Talk:Macroevolution#Webster's New College Dictionary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Please read my previous comment and if you want, respond to what was said – repetition does not win on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the ref. to Webster's is needed. Neither can I see that it causes any harm. Please note that we are not discussing the material content of the article here. So my suggestion is that we accept this superfluous ref. so that all of us can spend our time on more fruitful endeavours than this discussion. --Ettrig (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IF by your own words it is unnecessary, and by the count, against consensus, then why should we put it in? We don't add stuff against consensus just to stifle complaints. Auntie E. (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume some value in other's opinions. Gniniv sees a value in the reference. I see no cost. --Ettrig (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you have seen the histories of this article and Macroevolution in the last few days. There may be an attempt to reach a scientific conclusion based on what a dictionary said. This conversation is also at Talk:Macroevolution. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I have twice explained how to find the previous discussions that established the reliability of the source. I'm sorry that I haven't packaged the reply into a simple link but there is benefit to seeing how the WP:RSN archives can be searched. Further, there is no policy page saying that X is or is not a reliable source; what we have is discussion/explanation that in this case has led to a firm consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Please read my previous comment and if you want, respond to what was said – repetition does not win on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found good references and am replacing both with them....--Gniniv (talk)  08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: I have never edited a page before or anything, but the very first line on the page says microevolution is "a change in gene frequency within a population over time."  I am familiar with the citation associated with the quote, and I use the Berkeley page in my classroom.  However, this is a misuse of the term and should be "a change in allele frequency within a population over time."  It could also read "allele frequencies within a gene" or something like that, but gene frequency is technically incorrect.  It may seem nit-picky, but the term gene gets misused often enough as it is.  If someone that is a frequent editor agrees with me, please make the change.  Thanks mralph  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.172.137 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just spent some time fixing this talk page so your comment appears, and don't have time to look at the article now, but what you say sounds correct and you should just do the edit! See WP:TP for information on signing comments (put a space then four tildes after your comment, with nothing else after the tildes). Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Change 

message: Greetings Mann Jess, I am following up on the last reverts on this section. You said you wanted to discuss the information. So what's on your mind? This section did not reflect the reference adequately on the American Association for the Advancement of Science since it did not talk about "no scientific basis for distinction" at all. It merely noted that microevolution eventually makes macroevolution. This is interpreting more into the citation than the citation allows. Furthermore, the whole first paragraph was erroneous. No citations were provided for those claims which make this paragraph too apologetic, not neutral enough, and not well supported. Also, it does not reflect adequately the views of creationists. For example,the AIG citation (which is a very popular creationist institution) flat out contradicts the claim that creationists even endorse the micro/macrevlution words in the first place. They clearly do believe in natural selection, speciation, and microevolution, however they interpret the macroevolution differently. Its a subtle difference, not a massive one that many actually imagine. They are also not "anti-evolution", they are, if anything, "non-macroevolutionists via purely natural processes". I think my edit was well sourced and that I balanced some of the claims. What can we do about this? I hope to hear from you soon. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The AiG citation is one specific primary source promoting pseudoscience, and a such verification from a much better third party source is needed. The AiG source is clearly opposed to evolution in its normal scientific sense, holding to the old creationist claim that "species may undergo minor changes, but the range of variation is limited to variation within kinds". They apparently don't accept the terminology, but explicitly accept "microevolution" while claiming that there is some (supernatural?) barrier to macroevolution. Otherwise the ideas seem a bit bonkers, like the claim that a chihuahua has "less information" than a grey wolf!  The wording of our section needs improvement, but it also needs a better source for such improvement. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Straying off-topic there a bit, I've tightened up the section with additional sources. Note the source you added was from 1989 and isn't necessarily still current. The claim that Edward Blyth discovered natural selection is inaccurate as others, including Paley, had long formulated the idea of the struggle for existence eliminating the unfit, as an argument for species being fixed. Darwin acknowledged that others before himself (and before Blyth) had put forward evolutionary ideas similar to natural selection, but they did not develop them into a coherent theory as he did. . . dave souza, talk 08:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Misuse" Section and creationist understanding of the terms and related concepts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microevolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/615A9juxT?url=http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html to http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)