Talk:Macroevolution/Archive 1

message: . The chromozones and C chrome are 2 among many. And the ontogenies. It would be nice to ha
The biggest questions I have about this concept is are:
#Is macroevolution intended to mean a single big change that happens, or rather a series of microevolutions that when added up result in macroevolution?
#Why do the small changes not, over time, add up to a big one?
#How many microevolutions do there have to be before it becomes a macroevolution?
#Do creationists accept that most microevolutions are going to be harmful, but a few are beneficial?
#Do creationists accept that the beneficial microevolutions can replace the original organism (survival of the fittest)?
#How, within this theory, is a species defined? As two groups that can not breed?
#If so, what about organisms that do not have sexual reproduction (e.g., bacteria)?
I think these issues should be addressed in the article. --Dmerrill
I'm new to this article, so I won't edit it directly right now, but I'll answer some of your questions:
1) Macroevolution is distinguished from microevolution because it is different than just "a lot of microevolutions".  Those who think that "macroevolution" is just the sum of many "microevolutions" don't use the terms...to them it is all just "evolution" and the same mechanisms work at all scales, from sub-species all the way to domains.
2) This is not just a debate between scientists (Darwinists) and creationists.  There are several scientists who are just as Darwinist as anyone else, yet they believe that macroevolution must occur by different mechanisms than microevolution.  One of my professors portrays it as a debate between population geneticists (who see all evolution as being equivalent) and developmental geneticists (who distinguish between micro and macro).  He thinks this issue is very important, and he is going to address it at the end of this semester.  I'll return in a month or so after I've studied it more.  
--adam
----
Based solely on the article, it seems to me that "macroevolution" is not a theory at all but a concept, and that the conceptual distinction between micorevolution and macroevolution is important in the theory (or theories) of "intelligent design."  If I am correct, the article should be changed.  If I am incorrect, I for one would appreciate the article making the point clearer and explaining the theory (as opposed to the concept).
By the way, this conceptual distinction relies on an underlying assumption about the nature of "species."  Darwinian evolutionary theory does not make this distinction largely because it views species more as statistical rather than ontological phenomena.  The diference between how Darwinianists and non-Darwinianists view "species" is central to understanding why Darwinianists do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, and why non-Darwinianists do, so I think the article would be improved if this underlying view were explained.
Although I am willing to do this myself I'd like to invite those who have already been working on the article to respond/try this first, SR
----
Seeing that this page largely recaps discussion held on other
pages (such as the evolution page) and really needs discussion 
in the broader context of evolutionary theory rather than as a 
standalone topic, I would argue that this page should basically point
to the relevant other pages.  --Robert Merkel
I disagree -- there is much to be said about macroevolution which isn't really useful in the evolution article. My general biology textbook has several chapters that is mostly on macroevolution. --mav
Anyway, macroevolution and microevolution should definitely be combined into one article.  These concepts are as interconnected as light and dark.  --adam
-----
Ah, but that is the point at issue. Are macroevolution and microevolution truly interconnected? I'm not sure. Microevolution is evolution *below* the level of species, whilst macroevolution is evolution *at or above* the level of species.
These are similar topics, so they should be under the same article (I think) but they should definitely be under different headings and their definitions should certainly be made as clear as possible.
Anyone else agree?
Thanks
J.D.
-----
For all reading this article, remember this:
Microevolution is a scientific law, while macroevolution is debatable. That is probably the most important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.
Mr. X
:Incorrect.  Microevolution, despite being an observable phenomenon and the inevitable result of mutation and natural selection, isn't described as a "law" by scientists (that label is generally given to phenomena that strictly conform to mathematical formulae or conservation principles, such as the laws of motion).  But macroevolution is also an observable fact of nature. --Robert Stevens 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from 2004 

message: Maybe we should add a few more sections of criticisms! It would be better if someone restructured the section on Criticism to get rid of the apparent desire to fight on the issue rather than describe it. --ChadThomson 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Criticism of Criticism...

message: Once you've started discussing on talk, you don't need to revert again. The only reason you reverted in the first place was because the person in question hadn't explained anything yet. Your changes are still in history, you can always revert later. Just talk with people and take your time, people will see the discussion if they're really interested in the topic anyway. Once the discussion is finished you can always revert or edit as nescesary. This also saves you getting into trouble with the 3 revert rule. See also WP:HEC.
Kim Bruning 15:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick policy tip 

message: Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.
Can we shoot for something a little more accessible to the common reader?  gene-frequencies is not a well known concept...heck...I'll admit I don't even know what it means.   The ID debate in the US has been big news the past few months and more than a few curious soulds might make their way here trying to figure out what all the terms mean.
There also seem to be two definitions in the air:
- The first is that macroevolution occurs when "new species" appear.   Supposedly this has never been witnessed.   This seems to be a definition supported by intelligent design -- I've heard it personally from ID adherents. Evolutionary scientists would probably argue that the dividing line between species is fuzzy and often only "micro"scopic.
- The second has more to do with morphology -- not just new species appearing, but species that look substantially different from each other (the "higher taxa" mentioned above) due to changes in homoebox-related genes.  It seems that at least some evolutionary scientists would accept this as a definition.
Is my understanding of this correct?
These dual definitions, and the multiple definitons of species (there are seven on the species page), leads to a neverending rat's nest of intelligent design vs evolution confusion.    For instance "We've never seen macroevolution" or "yes we have!"  could mean over ten different things.   -Justforasecond 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first line and definitions 

message: The article is currently worded to suggest that either evolution is a slow process, or it moves in spurts. Shouldn't we make it clear that even if some evolutionary processes may move quickly, the overall process is/may still be/ gradual? I can imagine insects growing in length quite quickly, as individual body segments are added, but that doesn't mean all of evolution must be a quick and erratic road to nowhere. -- Ec5618 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dichotomy 

message: Regarding the 'Cambrian explosion'. The entire basis for this interpretation of the fossil evidence (that new phyla of metazoan animals all developed over a short time period of 30-40 million years) has been shown to be seriously flawed by the discovery of new Precambrian fossils in Australia:
:Incorrect.  The existence of precambrian fossils (such as the Ediacaran fauna) does not change the fact that the "Cambrian Explosion" happened. --Robert Stevens 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Cambrian Explosion' exploded. 

message: Cut:
:*A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists.  They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.
The article does not clarify what "misunderstanding" this might be. In fact, the article is so vague in its use of the technical term "allele frequencies" that the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is lost. Or is that the point?
Are their writers (scientists, I hope) who assert that macroevolution is in no way different from microevolution? 
Anyway, how has the concept been "coopted"? And who asserts that there is no hole in the evidence (or that there is a hole)? 
Should this discussion be linked to Evidence for evolution? --Uncle Ed 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the section on criticism is mostly a criticism of the criticism.  This article needs quite a few POV changes.  I'll try rewording what you quoted above. --Brilliand 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism

message: the modern synthesis is cited as being coined in the 30s and the 60s....which is it?
Amarilloarmadillo 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Armadillo, the way you organized the sections looks good, but I'm curious why you removed half of Gould's quote. Was that perhaps accidental? Doc  Tropics 07:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern synthesis -- 2x 

message: I think it's ridiculous that since April there's been a "citation needed" note associated with the definition of macroevolution. Since when do we need citations for common definitions? I think this is especially odd since the article already went to great lengths to retrace the development of the term and concept. To get rid of this inappropriate "citation needed", I placed the Dobzhansky reference up there, since he is credited with bringing the term to English. 
If you care, here's how he defined the term :
:Evolution is a change in the genetic composition of populations. The study of mechanisms of evolution falls within the province of population genetics. Of course, changes observed in populations may be of different orders of magnitude ranging from those induced in a herd of domestic animals by the introduction of a new sire to phylogenetic changes leading to the origin of new classes of organisms. The former are obviously trifling in scale compared with the latter. Experience shows, however, that there is no way toward understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on geological scales, other than through understanding of microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime, often controlled by man's will, and sometimes reproducible in laboratory experiments.
This is also how SJ Gould used the term, and it is also how plenty of other biologists have used the term. For what it's worth, only the most extreme reductionist can say that this distinction "doesn't matter" --that's basically saying that speciation doesn't matter, which flies in the face of all evolutionary theory. It's like saying that there's no difference between liquid water and ice: sure, both water and ice obey the laws of physics and have properties determined by the structure of the water molecule, but they are quite different. At the least, speciation affects effective population sizes and the potential for recombination among genes--but it doesn't take much to recognize that speciation produces drastic changes in the ecological interactions, changing the potential for both cooperation and competition among organisms. Interactions between species are a whole different game than interactions within species.
Don't let your fear of anti-scientists interfere with your consideration of science. AdamRetchless 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing a definition 

message: While we're talking about factual accuracy, I'd like to mention that Macroevolution is still a theory. Macroevolution should be called a theory until someone finds further proof than what scientists have already given us. I would ad this to the article, but I know that it would only be reverted by angry people. So, please don't yell. I most likely won't answer if you do. -Yancyfry 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Theory#Science. Did you know that gravitation is still only a theory, too? -- Sander Säde 06:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Intelligent Design is a theory only if you define theory as meaning theological conjecture unsupported by any testable data. In science, theory means a well tested explanation of facts. There are a whole bunch of facts which in science are called "macroevolution", and the various theories that combine to form the modern evolutionary synthesis explain them. To many Christians, faith in God doesn't need empirical support, or what ID proponents call His "leaving fingerprints". If you choose not to have such faith, so be it. .. dave souza, talk 10:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Ed added the following paragaph. I've removed it as it's unsourced and from what I understand, highly improbable in terms of science as required by WP:NPOV#Undue weight and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.
:There are two views of macroevolution: (1) that it is simply an extension of microevolutionary processes over large time scales, and (2) that it is disconnected from microevolution, or involves different processes, such as punctuational change and species selection. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly Charles Darwin and those subscribing to the modern synthesis, see the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution as being one of scale. Other evolutionary biologists, including Gould, Schmalhausen, Stanley, and Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution represent fundamentally different processes.
By a remarkable coincidence this looks rather like a creationist claim. .. dave souza, talk 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, as this seems like a Creationist claim would it be better to put it in an article which is about Creationism - rather than here? Assuming I can dig up the proper references and sources, that is. --Uncle Ed 22:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the most a sentence about how creationists misuse the term and a source and that's it. Anything else is giving undue weight to an extreme minority view. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views??

message: The material that was removed was deemed more appropriate for one of the history articles like History of evolutionary thought. I found the information interesting, although I am not sure how reliable it was. Has this material, hopefully properly verified and cited, been folded into a history article?--Filll 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: seems to me only one hit is creationist
macroevolution - Google SearchWeb Images Products News Maps Gmail more ▼ Blog 
Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs Orkut Patents Photos 
Reader Scholar Video Sign in
      Google   Advanced Search
              Preferences
       Web Results 1 - 10 of about 417,000 for macroevolution [definition]. 
      (0.08 seconds) 
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMacroevolution is a scale 
      of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. [1] Macroevolutionary 
      studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and HistoryIn evolutionary 
      biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change 
      at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a ...
      www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html - 86k - Cached - Similar 
pages
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...This 
      article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of 
      macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended 
      for those who ...
      www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
      [ More results from www.talkorigins.org ]
Evolution 101: MacroevolutionMacroevolution is evolution on a grand 
      scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: 
      stability, change, lineages arising, ...
      evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIMacroevolution.shtml - 8k - Cached 
      - Similar pages
MacroevolutionMicroevolution and macroevolution encompass change at very 
      different scales, but both work through the same basic processes. ...
      evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=49 - 
      11k - Cached - Similar pages
      [ More results from evolution.berkeley.edu ]
MacroevolutionMacroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the 
      species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of 
      major novelties such as ...
      www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html - 29k - Cached 
      - Similar pages
Problems with Macro EvolutionRESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:. 1. 
      ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements 
      by natural means is beyond the realm of ...
      www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/problems_macro/prob_macro.html - 
      6k - Cached - Similar pages
BIO 304. Ecology & Evolution: MacroevolutionAdaptive radiation resulted in 
      an amazing diversity with hundreds of different species in these 
      freshwater fishes. Back to Macroevolution -- Back to Top ...
      www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/speciation.html - 7k - 
      Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account 
      ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
      microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are 
      ... Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the 
      heart ...
      evolution-facts.org/New-material/Microevolution.pdf - Similar pages
Synthetic Theory of Evolution: Micro and Macro EvolutionA natural 
      consequence of this sort of macroevolution click this icon to hear the 
      preceding term pronounced would be the slow progressive change of one ...
      anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hignit (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just Googled it myself.  Currently, the first hit is this article, then we have 2 hits on TalkOrigins (certainly not a creationist site, but nevertheless a site that exists because of creationism, and discusses it because of the misuse of the term by creationists).  Then there are three science articles that are apparently independent of creationism, then a creationist site ("evolution facts"), then 2 more science sites, then another creationist site.  Thus, 40% of the first 10 hits are either creationist or counter-creationist articles.  Similarly, 40% of the next 10 hits that I get are apparently either creationist or counter-creationist articles (3 creationist, 1 counter-creationist).  I think this justifies covering the creationist misuse of the term. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not according to mainstream scientists and mainstream science. Find us a peer-reviewed article in the last 20 years in Nature magazine or Science magazine or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society that agrees with you and you might have a chance of making your case. Otherwise, it is not likely.--Filll (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that when a new species evolves that is microevolution? That does not make sense. And show me a statement where a creationist 'misuses' the term macroevolution. Please cite that. Hignit (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  google search on macroevoluton 

message: I believe that the "Criticisms of Macroevolution" section is improperly titled since it does not cite any direct criticisms. Instead, it appears to be a response to the criticisms. As such, perhaps the title of that section should be changed to "Response to Criticisms." It should probably be preceded by a newly-written criticisms section that neutrally notes specific criticisms. Thoughts?
Please note: The issue here is whether the title of a section matches its content. It is NOT a question of scientific evidence or lack thereof. Raetzsch (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section discusses criticisms.  We shouldn't have a "criticism" section simply to state criticisms of the topics - things like that should be worked into the article.  On a topic like this though, we need to discuss the criticisms, which is what the section does.  Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Barely, it would seem to me. The way the whole thing is worded, it almost displays POV, in my opinion. But I don't trust myself to make the edit without reversing the point of view myself. Max (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms vs. Response to Criticisms 

message: I removed the sentence
:This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics.  
from the introduction. This is a statement of the type "some people say..." and has no place here. If it is indeed true it should be easy to provide sources and names of biologists who dispute this. --RE (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be referring to Gould and Eldridge, but both Dawkins (1986) and Dennett (1995) thinks that Punctuated Equilibrium lies within the post-synthetic theory of evolution 81.228.212.111 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. Gould and Eldredge could be cited, as well as a variety of other paleontologists. There are also well-documented processes such as polyploidy, hybridization, and symbiogenesis that rapidly produce new forms that end up being treated as new species. These processes were largely neglected by classical population genetics. If no one objects, I'll look up the cites, insert them in this statement, and put it back into the article. Lovemonger (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced statement 

message: Macroevolution has recently been observed in a strain of E. Coli - in short, a colony of E. Coli has evolved to the point where it can metabolise citrates, an ability the absence of which is one of the defining characteristics of E. Coli. In other words, the strain of E. Coli has evolved into a different species, and it's all been observed. I believe this could be mentioned somewhere along the part of the article that says evolutionists believe macroevolution isn't real, since it has never been observed. More info here: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html  and here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/23/7899  TomorrowTime (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Viruses are not classed as living organisms, therefore observed adaptations are not considered evidence of biological macroevolution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheevel (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: E. Coli is a bacterium, not a virus.  So your point is completely without any merit.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not add the recommended links as footnotes supporting macroevolution? --Scheevel (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sensing a trick question, so I'll bite. Why not?  (Probable answer: the paper never mentions the term "macroevolution" or fails to meet some moving-of-the-goalpost definition thereof.) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: siℓℓy rabbit...tricks are for kids!  This just looks like a clinical example of macroevolution within a bacterium.  So, why not reference it as a proof?  It's stronger than the current propaganda masquerading as fact in the footnotes. --Scheevel (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly would you have us add the link?  To the part where it says that macroevolution is overwhelmingly supported in the scientific community?  But the link doesn't support that statement, since it fails to directly mention the term "macroevolution".  Do you feel that the article needs evidence that speciation occurs?  Please be specific! siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent developments in E. Coli research 

message: Just in passing, the article might do itself a favour to include some (recent?) citations to material published within the scientific literature on the topic.  At present there seem only to be links to talk.origins, a couple of books and a very old paper (?) by Dobzhansky.  This seems somewhat thin for an ostensibly important topic in evolutionary biology.  I don't entirely buy the idea that the disparate list of research topics can be united as "macroevolution" myself (it's all just a bunch of interesting microevolution to me!), but the article would be strongly shored up if there was a well-sourced case for it.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically wanted to say what Plumbago said, I skim read the article so I'm not sure if i missed anything, but some recorded evidence of macro evolution by mordern scientists might be useful (and there is alot of it about,especially regarding plants.) It would be completely on topic and would probably make the creationists leave you alone, they tend not to like evidence and proof and stuff like that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.243.235 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific literature 

message: I think that the article creationism has much more relevant information regarding the creation-evolution controversy than the article creation myth, which is of rather tenuous relevance to the topic of this article in context.  Accordingly, I have restored anon's edit.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism or creation myth? 

message: Per WP:BRD I recently added the  template to several dubius claims made in this article; the edits were reverted by User:Spotfixer.  The particular claim I take issue with is, "Its [macroevolutionary change] occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community."  The rationale for the revert was that the details were covered by adjacent citations.  A quick skim of the closest citations (#6 and #7) reveals nothing on this topic, if I missed it I'd appreciate hearing exactly where it is.  I also have doubts of the reliability of a usenet archive to speak for the entire scientific community, despite their stated goal of "provid[ing] mainstream scientific responses" to questions on the creation-evolution debate.  How have they shown that they do, in fact, speak for the mainstream scientific community?  --Cerebellum (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear: what part are you doubting?  Are you doubting that, in areas like the USA, there is a social, religious but non-scientific controversy about evolution in general?  Are you doubting that, among scientists qualified to speak about biology, there is no controversy about the existence of evolution beyond the level of changes within species?  Spotfixer (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubting the second part: "not disputed within the scientific community."  I could also take issue with your description of the first part (religious but non-scientific? do we really want to go there?), but the way the article phrases it I am perfectly fine with.  Yes, there is controversy with the public at large.  Is there controversy within the scientific community?  I dunno, show me a reliable source.  --Cerebellum (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably as there is no controversy within the scientific community which is why there isn't an RS to show that there is no controversy within the scientific community.  A review of the collection of references at the bottom of the article (the scientific ones that is) certainly gives the impression (in a lot of words) that there is no controversy in those references.  Shot info (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If you want to add a  without subsequently embarrassing yourself, you need to take a moment to do your own research.  You don't even have to look very far. Spotfixer (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So 996 scientists named Steve support evolution.  Call me stupid, but I don't see how this demonstrates that there is no controversy over this issue within the scientific community.  I'm putting the  template back in the article and signing off for the night.  If sources supporting the claim exist, please add them.  --Cerebellum (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It was a waste of time.  There was never, for even a moment, doubt. Spotfixer (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No hard feelings at all.  I wouldn't even have been annoyed if this hadn't coincidentally been part of a recent pattern of citation requests for things that really don't need further citations.  Spotfixer (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adequacy of citations 

message: I added some relatively undisputed comments to the Criticisms of Macroevolution section, the part added I put in bold here: "They describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution"[1] and assert that no amount of small changes can ever add up to a big change. Evolutionary scientists hold that this assertion is nonsensical on its face." I  also added a link that supports the article statement "These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past." These minor changes were instantly removed by one, OrangeMarlin saying in a private message:
"One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Macroevolution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you." 
The minor comment I added was hardly different than other such comments found in the article and additionally are the position science holds on this subject anyway. What gives? 4.246.206.211 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence you added was apart from the reference, which is from a notoriously non-neutral source. Novangelis (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What notoriously non-neutral source are you refering to? 4.246.200.102 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I was on the point of deleting this addition, but was just beaten to it by another editor. I strongly agree with the deletion, because: (a) the reference you added was to a few-year-old blog and not a reliable source, (b) the reference added nothing new to the article, (c) the point that the arguments are rejected by mainstream science is already amply demonstrated in the article, (d) the statement "Evolutionary scientists hold that this assertion is nonsensical on its face" does not do justice to the cogent arguments put forward by evolutionary biology, and looks like an incitement rather than a reasoned argument. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talikng about? I added no source from a blog. The wording of the "incitement" could changed if you think it is such. 4.246.200.102 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Riiight. You think Kent Hovind is a reliable source. Interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge? I can probably do you a special offer. . dave souza, talk 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, if you'd bothered to look you'd have found that the link was not from Kent Hovind. 63.196.193.138 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, OK, maybe not a blog as such, but very bloggish, and clearly not a reliable source. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. If you can find anything in that link that is in error or not reliable sourced please point it out. 63.196.193.138 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is targeted at one person. It is the epitome of a biased source. Even if everything is right, it is the wrong kind of source. Novangelis (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Certainly it is a biased source. Wikipedia editorial policies allow that sources can be biased. It is very hard to find anything that doesn't have a bias one way or another. What editors here are supposed to do is to present information from biased sources in an unbiased and balanced way. I merely gave a link to the source. 63.196.193.138 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence added and immediately deleted 

message: "Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes"
In fact, it seems to be mostly this, rather than incremental accumulation of point mutations (just as microevolution ius mostly the latter). True, both micro and macro share all (almost all?) mechanisms, but while they are two ends of a scale, there is (it seems) very little between these extremes (mostly indels apparently). In a Gouldian nutshell, micro is the equilibrium, while macro is the punctuations.
And macroevolution is as far as I have seen mostly above the level of the primary base sequence. There may be the occasional point mutation causing a macro event (such as when mate recognition is affected), and there may be the occasional "silent" gene duplication or chromosomal mutation. But mostly, accumulating point mutations are microevolution! They have to be, in a genetic system that is as riddled with epistasis as that of most organisms. A single point mutation is likely to be inconsequential or fatal; it is usually the accumulation of several point mutations, which each on its own are silent, neutral, or nearly so, that causes microevolutionary change. Whereas macroevolutionary change is easiest with mutations affecting longer sequences en bloc. Hox paralogs are such a nice showcase! (Note also that point mutations are usually the result of completely different processes than block mutations)
So the above text should either be rewritten accordingly, or an example of macroevolution due to point mutation accumulation should be added. As it is now - claiming one thing and giving examples for the exact opposite thing - it is self-contradictory. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of self-contradiction

message: Talk origins is not a scientifically accredited community. This topic is highly controversial, and therefore requires references to scientific papers or research actually demonstrating the assertions. Stating that 'mainstream science' has shown something is not proof at all, and neither are the arguments posted on a web blog (i.e. talk origins). There should be some pdfs or dissertations noted at the bottom of the page. Until such references can be provided, a large portion of the 'criticism' area has been removed, because it is simply unscientific, and appears to be largely a political discussion.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.51.180 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The talkorigins archive is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia. It is not a "blog." Do not remove these sections again. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: There really is nothing to say to this; this is not the place to debate macroevolution. Science is not "propaganda," and Wikipedia will not accommodate fringe creationist POV in scientific articles. That is all. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IP has a point though, we could use better sources. Abyssal (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is confusing the website with the Usenet group. It's not a blog either. Its use has been discussed a number of times and it has been agreed that it can be used. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need supporting evidence: 

message: Guys i don't fully get what the issue is but stop reverting edits and deal with it on the talk page here!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodi01 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "it" that needs dealing with? What NPOV dispute? I see nothing here to justify the tag. I have removed it. Please do not put it back without explaining here what the issue is. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: All I see is a single editor trying to introduce creationist talking points into the article, against consensus.  It takes a bit more to justify a tag like that. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: This edit introduced an odd spin into the criticisms section:
It seems to be a rather incoherent way of describing something already covered in the article. Further consideration is needed. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be appropriate to add another example of the role of Hox genes in evolution, but I agree this is already covered in the section on "Macroevolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis". I've added some more references on this topic in that section. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I note the source you added (which I can't access) is from 1995, so I looked around for something I'd trust more. Genomic Evolution of Hox Gene Clusters by Lemons, McGinnis (Science 2006) describes the link as speculative, so I'll remove your addition from the article. Narayanese (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm,  (2009) states "These data support the view that Hox genes regulate the establishment of distinct morphological structures along the AP axis in vertebrates and suggest that evolutionary changes in the level for transition between vertebral types might occur by changes in expression boundaries of Hox genes."  (2007) discusses Hox gene evolution in detail and also notes the possibility that their modification "Hox meta-genes, following their duplication, might have offered novel possibilities for regulations to be co-opted, thus triggering the emergence of these various vertebrate features". However you're right that neither of these describe this idea as a firm conclusion, the old text did over-state the evidence a little. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe spin