Talk:Macroevolution

message: So like, uh, is nobody going to say anything about how the user Toedi3614 completely rewrote essentially the whole article on 3-6 May 2020? The page went from  to  where there has been no significant change since then. Basically the entire article changed from the concept of macroevolution being evolutionary change beyond the species level, to a group selection idea. As far as I know, group selection is still a pretty contentious idea, so I'm not sure how much of a good representation of the current state of the art this new page is. It appears that the article is written basically along the lines of just one article written by Michael Hautmann. I mean really, one guy? Really? We're going to re-write the entire article based off of one author? C'mon now. Can someone else please comment on this? BirdValiant (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but even group selection has little to do with macro-evolution. See my comment below about rewriting this page (again). Peteruetz (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I mean, is nobody going to talk about how this article was essentially deleted and rewritten in early May 2020, and then not touched again? 

message: This page needs a complete rewrite. It has barely anything to do with macro-evolution. I have already deleted 2 sections, namely those on "Evolutionary faunas" and on "speciation", both of which literally said nothing about macro-evolution. What's most urgently needed are sections on explanations and good examples. Thoughts? Peteruetz (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started to rewrite this now. I will likely delete the sections on Mass extinctions, Stanley's rule, and Species selection, which have next to nothing to do with macroevolution. This will literally delete most of the original page, except for the history section (which probably should be revised too). Just to mention it :) Peteruetz (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You introduced creationist bullshit. That does not belong here, it has its own page. We use science in pages about pseudoscience but not the other way around, see WP:ONEWAY. I reverted back to before your first edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And not trying to edit-war your WP:PROFRINGE edits back in. Bad idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite 

message: That is the reason they are called "missing"... but I think the sentence is not meant that way and should be reworded to avoid that possible misunderstanding. Something like "Actually, there are no large gaps in the fossil record".
Do we have a source for it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change. Feel free to edit it. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing links 

message: @Pepperbeast why did you revert my edit? There was consensus on the talk page. Scientists don't spend enough time debunking creationism to warrant its inclusion on this page in line with WP:ONEWAY.  Watch Atlas791 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise. I wasn't following the discussion very closely. Feel free to revert. PepperBeast (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence of Misconceptions Section