Talk:Macroevolution/Archive 1

Comments from 2004

. 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:

1. Is macroevolution intended to mean a single big change that happens, or rather a series of microevolutions that when added up result in macroevolution?
2. Why do the small changes not, over time, add up to a big one?
3. How many microevolutions do there have to be before it becomes a macroevolution?
4. Do creationists accept that most microevolutions are going to be harmful, but a few are beneficial?
5. Do creationists accept that the beneficial microevolutions can replace the original organism (survival of the fittest)?
6. How, within this theory, is a species defined? As two groups that can not breed?
7. 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)

Response, September 2007: Two questions:

1. If microevolution is not a scientific law, as you say, then what should it be considered? A theory? It seems like it is too widely and for too long accepted to be a theory.

2. Is the correct definition for macroevolution "a change by an organism that occurs above or at the species level"? And if so then how should species be properly defined?

Thanks

Mr. X

---

Look up the definition and criteria of scientific laws and you will see why it isn't a law. --Sadistic monkey (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The link to the '29+ evidences for macroevolution' had a critique written which was described by the original authour as "well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article)". I linked both the critique and the critique of the critique!

Can I note that from a philosophy of science perspective, scientific dismissal of creationism as 'untestable' is a good demonstration of why science is open to postmodern critique and shouldn't be seen as telling absolute truth. Science has developed rules to determine whether or not knowledge is 'scientific', such as repeatability, testability, disprovability and thus religious knowledge and belief is inherently unscientific by the definition of the field.

-Psychobabble

---

The reason there are no arguments for or against seems to me to be based on the fact that there is no clear definition of the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. The definition cited in the article is based on the word "species", a word which in itself has become increasingly clear to be an artifical concept induced by man which does not model nature. Modern systematic genetics have given us a wide variety of examples of populations of animals to which no species boundaries can be drawn, or where such boundaries clearly contradict the separation of micro and macroevolution. boxed

Testable

History is testable; It's done all the time in court. The relationship between species is also testable; if species are related in particular manners, then we expect certain patterns to exist in their DNA, in their physiology, and in the fossil record. The relationships of species and structures is constantly tested in evolution studies that look for evidence of homology vs. convergent evolution.

Living (and fossilized) organisms show a lot of patterns that match up with the hypotheses that they share common ancestors. Many of these patterns were predicted beforehand, based on these hypotheses. There may be a better explanation for these patterns, but it hasn't been proposed yet.

I suggest reading this booklet from the NAS [1]. It's called "Teaching evolution and the nature of science" AdamRetchless 14:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i agree that this is a viewpoint held by many who ascribe to evolution. however, the viewpoint held by creationists is that it is not. the sentence in question is attributed to that source. if you'd like to add a counter to the "history is not testable" argument, feel free, but the argument is attributed, widely made, and so should be left intact. Ungtss 14:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm...this is not a matter of point of view, this is a matter of factural accuracy. Macroevolution is testable, is regularly tested. Hypotheses are proposed, tested, and accepted or rejected. This is not a question of whether or not one agrees with (macro)evolution - documenting the existence of skepticism is within the scope. But stating that macroevolution is untestable is denying that a wealth of scholarship exists. Guettarda 14:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm afraid that even given all this, the creationists still assert otherwise, in great detail. please, sir, i don't want to debate you. the assertion is noted, attributed and then summarily dispatched by the NAS. this is what npov is made of. is this not acceptable? Ungtss 14:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Factually incorrect points of view may and must be attributed to their proponents, and then dispatched by others. you are violating this rule in the name of your ideology, and the confusion of fact and interpretation of fact. however, six months of experience have taught me that there is a tacit "don't enforce npov" rule at wikipedia on any topic related to creationism. you are directly violating wikipedia policy. carry on. Ungtss 14:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that a "rebuttal" that doesn't rebut should be given? I don't understand. It's like saying "X says that the sky is blue. However, Y rebuts this by saying that the sea is orange." The factual accuracy isn't the issue here - what I have a problem with is that the rebuttal does not rebut. How is that ideology, pray tell? Guettarda 15:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if your complaint is with the quality of the rebuttal, then feel free to fix the rebuttal. my complaint is with your deletion of an attributed, widely held, and relevent point of view. it is that deletion that smacks of ideology. the factually accurate and attributed refutation of that point of view would smack of npov. Ungtss 15:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was not a deletion - it was the removal of a factually inaccurate insertion. I would not have deleted something from the article that was there before without discussion. However, an anon (who has not bothered to enter this discussion) made the assertion. If it could be sourced (to say "creation scientists" is not a sourced assertion per se) I might look at it differently, although I owuld still take issue with wording. As it stand (or stood) the assertion says that CS's say that history is untestable, and thus macroevolution is a pseudoscience. That statement implies (i) that macroevol depends on history, and (ii), if history is untestable, then macroevol is untestable, and therefore pseudoscience. One of the many sources for macroevol is the historical record. But to test hypotheses using historical data is not to test history as such. In addition, there is a lot more than history - there are experimental studies. The statement is factually inaccurate, but that is the least of my concerns with it. It's unattributed - no source is provided. Can you attribute it to any one person who calls himself/herself a "creation scientist"? But more importantly, it is logically flawed - whether macroevolution is a pseudoscience or not does not depend on the falisifiability of history. In summary:

• it is not attributed;
• no evidence is given for how widely it is held;
• it is not relevent, since it does not rebut anything because it does not address tha issue at hand

Guettarda 15:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're asking for more detail on a topic you manifestly want excluded from the page. i had hoped to keep the text short to minimize impact on the page. would you support the introduce a cited, sourced, attributed, and more detailed discussion on the topic?

Irony of this just hit me - creation scientist as empiricist? Hmmm... Guettarda 16:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing more empirical than creationism, sir. we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. evolutionists, on the other hand, explain nothing by virtue of explaining everything. Ungtss 20:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Empiricism: Empiricism (greek εμπειρισμός, from empirical, latin experientia - the experience) is generally regarded as being at the heart of the modern scientific method, that our theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith. Guettarda 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep. And to my mind, belief in abiogenesis and universal common ancestry require a lot more faith than creationism. Ungtss 21:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on content. I don't see ID as disputing macroevolution (merely the drivers thereof) while panspermia merely disputes abiogenisis on earth, it does not dispute macroevolution (speciation). As I understand it, even baraminology only disputes the degree to which macroevolution occurs. Only YECs seriously dispute macroevolution. Guettarda 21:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

panspermists, old earth creationists, intelligent design. Ungtss 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The ID link says that "[w]hat intelligent design does reject that the notion that mutation and natural selection (combined with any other natural mechanism) is sufficient to produce or explain all aspects of life - this has nothing to do with whether ID accepts or does not accept macroevolution.
  • the second full sentence on the page, in the "short anser:" "Most intelligent design proponents accept microevolution but question if macroevolutionary changes are possible."
• Panspermia link - does not deal with panspermia. Please see panspermia.
  • you need to read further down. particularly, the section "Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?"
• OEC - you provided one link. Nonetheless, the created kinds article, together with other material I have read on baraminology allows for macroevolution. They can always define macroevolution out of their scope of acceptance, but that does not mean that they reject speciation. You have to reject speciation to reject macroevolution. ID and panspermia do not reject macroevolution. Guettarda 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • you've redefined macroevolution as requiring speciation. there is no such requirement. virtually all panspermists, yec's, and ider's acknowledge speciation, but not macro. Ungtss 21:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not defining macroevolution as "requiring speciation" - macroevolution is (by definition) speciation or above. Microevolution is anything that takes place within species. Macroevolutiion is everything else - starting with speciation. Reject macroevolution, you reject speciation. Do not reject speciation and you do not reject macroevolution. Simple distinction, and utterly crucial. Guettarda 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen that definition before. i don't even see it on this page. I see: "Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time." i could therefore accept evolution to the level of species, but reject it at the level of genus or phylum. that is, in fact, what the above groups do. Ungtss 22:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But this is arguing that speciation is not sufficient for macroevolution (as thusly defined), not that it's not necessary. I think there's some confusion on terms and/or direction of implication, here... BTW, some of said groups seem also to be happy with "genusification", "familyisation", and even "orderisement" in some cases, on the basis of discussions elsewhere. (To neologise in the style of a certain UK Dubya parody.) Alai 22:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, Alai. i agree. since speciation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for macroevolution, one can reject macroevolution without rejecting speciation. Ungtss 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism of Criticism...

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)

Rejecting macroevolution

How could you reject evolution at the genus level but not at the species level, pray tell? Genus/species borders are subjective - to do that would be to put your faith in systematists. Anyway, speciation is both sufficient (inasmuch as speciation=macroevolution) and necessary (since you cannot have stable divergence without some sort of reproductive barrier). I think you are shifting the goal posts to support your own view of things. You are re-defining macroevolution as those aspects of evolution with which I disagree. Speciation is both sufficient for macroevolution, and necessary. Anything other than evolution within a species is macroevolution. Or have you just invented mesoevolution? Guettarda 13:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<How could you reject evolution at the genus level but not at the species level>>

From the creation biology paradigm, speciation occurs through the loss of capacity to interbreed, and the loss of genetic characteristics through genetic drift. it is a negative view of speciation -- certainly not your macroevolutionary paradigm. Ungtss 13:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This argument could all be avoided if you would merely clarify the basis for creationist rejection of macroevolution. That would determine both why, and what the indicated meaning of macroevolution is. Graft 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right. thanks for defining the issue. i tried to rewrite with your suggestion in mind. how did i do? Ungtss 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um. Lost me, that's for sure. Irreducible complexity is not necessarily an attack on macroevolution per se, and macroevolution need not involve violating irreducible complexity. Graft 16:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

all true. but both specified + irreducible complexity are used to argue against macroevolution. irreducible, for instance, in the case of the enzymes involved in human blood clotting. specified in the case of the increased genetic information required to get us from proto-weasel to human. i'm having a hard time figuring out what you're looking for. any suggestions on making it clearer? Ungtss 16:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human blood-clotting is an example of macroevolution? And I was under the impression that specified complexity is predicated on irreducible complexity. Graft 16:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No sir. human blood-clotting is an asserted instance of irreducible complexity[2], and specified complexity is often used in conjunction with irreducible complexity, but it's a different concept. specified complexity is about information theory. irreducible complexity is about functionality. Ungtss 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blood clotting would almost certainly be microevolution - it would probably have developed within a single species. At what point do we see a split between clotters and bleeders (and I'm not talking about haemophilia)? Within species = microevolution. Guettarda 16:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand how specified complexity and irreducible complexity can be used against macroevolution - doesn't Behe say he has no problem with macroevolution per se? Guettarda 16:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has no problem with certain aspects of macroevolution, but he draws limits. perhaps that's the best way to articulate the objection: it's not an objection to "macroevolution" per se, but an assertion that there are limits to it. what do you think? Ungtss 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You need to be more explicit. What are the limits, and why? Also, blood clotting has surely undergone a progressive development over the course of the evolutionary history of blood. Since it's multifactor and varies amongst vertebrates, it seems probable that it was built on incremental improvements over time. Some modifications to the clotting process must have happened within a species, but "clotting" as a whole must have developed across many hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Whether this makes it "macroevolution" or "microevolution", i'm not sure. Graft 17:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that. thanks. and the argument from irreducible complexity is that blood clotting cannot have undergone such variation, because any variation would cause they entire system to fail. Ungtss 17:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quick policy tip

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)

Distinction Between Microevolution and Macroevolution

No-one seems willing to attempt to describe this distinction, so I'll have a go:

Microevolution describes changes within a species, such as variations in finch beak lengths (as observed by Charles Darwin on his trip on the Beagle). Such changes may be explained in terms of variations within a population of organisms of the one species, which over time may cause a survival advantage to certain individuals, and not to others. The result, of course, is that some individuals die out, and others (with the advantageous variation) go on to survive and reproduce. Over time such variations can be 'selected' by natural processes of predation and general survival (natural selection), resulting in a 'new' strain or variant of the species, all having a particular characteristic. The crucial point to be noted is that this is a result of the filtering of the available gene pool for that species, resulting in fewer variations in the population. Given long enough (and it doesn't need to be more than a few generations), there may be no organisms other than the 'new' variant. This is exactly what is done by human animal and plant breeders, who deliberately select individuals with certain desirable characteristics, and allow only those individuals to mate or reproduce. Of course, this is not true evolution, since it does not take place via inguided natural forces, but requires human intervention.

Macroevolution, by comparison, is the emergence of new species, over presumably a very long period of time, caused at the genetic level by the introduction of new genetic material, or new information in the DNA of the organism. In other words, what might be called 'true evolution', or macroevolution, requires that natural, unguided forces cause new information to be added to existing DNA, resulting in viable changes in an individual organism, giving that organism a survival advantage over others of that species, and that that individual then goes on to reproduce, thus passing the new DNA onto the next generation. Plainly just one new organism is unlikely to result in a new species, and so the parent organism with the new DNA would have to reproduce several times in order for a viable next, 'improved' generation to emerge.

Arguments that macroevolution has been observed, and is therefore a proven event, are IMHO disingenuous. They are based on evidence that various species exist, which are hypothesised to have come from other, simpler, common ancestors. The evidence of this variation is taken to 'prove', then, that macroevolution must have taken place, plainly a circular argument. --User:Hiflyer 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added the pov-boiler. This article doesn't begin to mention that macroevolution is a term created by creationists. There are other points as well. -- Ec5618 10:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

1. To Ec - Are you sure macroevolution is a creationist term? That would need to be sourced. I suspect it isn't.
2. To Hiflyer - I think you have some major misconceptions about evolution. Most simply, speciation and incipient speciation have been observed and a lot of speciation mechanisms are quite well understood; there is nothing more "real" about speciation than there is about evolution within species; natural selection is an incredibly strong "guiding force". Your last paragraph is simply wrong. Guettarda 12:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the boiler (I'm new to Wikipedia and hadn't heard of it before). I agree on re-reading that my additions to the article were not really NPOV. I still believe that a clear distinction can be made between the two terms, so I have removed some biased language, and left the main 'Criticim' section. I hope others will agree that it adds usefully to the page.

Guettarda: I do not accept that speciation is as clearly evidenced as change within species; the difference in changes required in DNA surely show that there is a fundamental distinction between them, to the extent that one of the terms could really do with changing, since they sound so similar.--Hiflyer 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Speciation can occur with only limited genetic change - for example, through polyploidy (as in the evolution of wheat), or through alteration of mating behaviour (once these are genetically rooted) - for example, there are bird "populations" which differ in mating calls, and which do not recognise the mating calls of other populations currently classified within the same species - technically, these are different species (since they have achieved pre-zygotci isolation), but, at present, there is no way to distinguish them morphologically. Speciation can be a trivial even, but it frees species to diverge evolutionarily. That's really the whole difference between mico- and macro Guettarda 21:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If you accept the basic premise of functional genetic variation, which I think nearly everyone does, then speciation is an almost direct implication. Consider an obvious mechanism of speciation, which is gonadal incompatibility (i.e., the male and female organs are physically unable to interface in order to complete insemination). Dobzhansky described a simple ratcheting mechanism that can result in speciation (genotypically, but which can be illustrated phenotypically as follows). It ought to be obvious that genetic variation can exist in this regard, and in an isolated population genetic drift will eventually result in the population subtly changing over time - normal, interspecific variation. Meanwhile, consider a separate population that, by mere chance, drifts in a different direction. Size is probably easy to imagine. Now, when these two sub-populations encounter one another, they are unable to interbreed. Speciation has occurred, and subsequently the general drift of evolution will take them further and further apart. Graft 21:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But if speciation includes examples such as this, then a distinction is still needed between the sort of "filtered DNA pool" type change, and the "added information in DNA" type - the differences go in opposite directions, and so cannot be considered as the same thing. I expect we can all imagine geographically-separated populations of birds of one species which develop over time incompatible mating calls. Is this really a new species - has the DNA changed through the addition of new information? This seems unlikely. Sure, this is "trivial speciation", but as for "[freeing] species to diverge evolutionarily"? The statement again assumes that micro- and macroevolution are different only in degree, but does not demonstrate evidence to support this conjecture. --Hiflyer 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "filtered DNA pool" type change, and the "added information in DNA" type. But with regards to the second parts of your question, if the mating calls are genetically programmed (which is the case in most bird species), then yes, of course, the DNA must have changed. Of course this is speciation, as species are usually defined. See species (and I'm serious, there's a discussion there about what "species" means. As for "The statement again assumes that micro- and macroevolution are different only in degree" - yes, of course it does. They are the same. It's just a matter of terminology. I can't picture how you would make the distinction. Say, species A splits into two groups, A1 and A2. They meet back up, and they can no longer interbreed - so they are species. So differences between them could be studied as "macroevolution" (since it involved change between what are now two species) but differences between any two ancestral populations in the A1 lineage (and in the A2 lineage) and their ancestors would only be micrevolutionary. The difference between the two is more semantic than anything else. Guettarda 13:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

the first line and definitions

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)

---

I haven't gone through this silly debate to see if it has been mentioned, but there is a clear difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is reversable (gene frequencies, etc.), whereas macroevolution is not.

on the context flag

I put the context flag up because the intro is too hard for anyone to understand. In particular "large-scale changes in gene-frequencies" is tough for a newcomer. In wiki we have:

- Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.

Compare to google "define", where some of the definitions are much simpler [3]:

1. Large scale change in organisms resulting in new species, genera, families, etc.
2. Evolution on the grand scale resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, large scale functional and structural changes, etc.
3. Larger changes in evolution, such as when a new species is formed or a mass extinction.
4. The study of evolutionary changes that take place over a very large time-scale. Contrast to microevolution. Macroevolutionary change is usually recognised as change in gross morphology in a series of fossils. There is some controversy over whether macroevolutionary change is fundamentally just cumulated microevolutionary change, or whether the two are `decoupled' and driven by fundamentally different kinds of process.
5. The branching of new species from existing species.

The other thing about these definitions is that its odd that the wiki definition is different than all of these. It should express at least most of what the internet says.

-Justforasecond 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Cyde's edit - I disagree with the "over a long period of time" - speciation can occur over a short period of time. I don't think we should have an unsourced summary of what macroevolution is.

Regarding JFAS's comments - google is not a good place to define scientific concepts. The existing defintion was pretty accurate, if not as "accessible" as some might like. Guettarda 03:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The current intro is unsourced and out of line with the numerous definitions online. -Justforasecond 03:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It agrees with (1) and (5); (2) is a general statement on evolution; (3) is incomplete (and thus, inaccurate), (4) is inaccurate. Guettarda 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe we should lengthen the intro to more than one sentence. I agree that it is confusingly worded as it is now. I know a lot about the subject and I can only puzzle out the meaning because I know what the meaning should be and because I know what every other word in the sentence means. I just don't have a good verbalization of the meaning. Gahhhrr. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the one-sentance intro with the "overview", since the intro is supposed to be an overview of the topic. It still needs work, of course. Guettarda 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks a lot better guys. It could be impoved...but so can everything else. I'm removing the flag -Justforasecond 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Macroevolution and transitional forms

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record leads many to question macroevolution. I think this would be a helpful addition to the topic. Picture animals evolving from having exoskeletons to endoskeletons. Picture animals evolving from having open cirulatory systems to closed ones. Picture the process of animals with no limbs, evolving fins, and then other functioning appendages. Why do scientists get excited when they find one supposed transitional form? Given the number of species on the earth today, there would necessarily be thousands and thousands of transitional forms that would reflect macroevolutionary change. The only clear evidence in the fossil record is that of the Cambrian explosion, which disproves Darwin's phylogeny. I also agree that mutations and natural selection are insufficient to produce macroevolutionary change, given the assumption that such changes are gradual. Scientists that recognize this insufficiency and the lack of transitional forms are forced to create new theories that support their naturalistic bias. I don't understand why reputable scientists more readily accept something like the punctuated equilibrium theory rather than admit the logic and scientific evidence of irriducible complexity and the Cambrian explosion. LAInquiry

What lack of transitional forms? The fossil record is full of them. Guettarda 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I may be misreading your post, LAInquiry. Are you suggesting that, while the idea of a closed circulatory system evolving from an open circulatory system may seem incredible, it isn't really. Are you suggesting that we should make the context of such examples, the 'Eureka'-ness if you will, more clear in the article?

Or are you suggesting that since you do not find the idea of such evolution plausible, we should add to the article that it is in fact highly improbable?

For the record, the fossil record is indeed quite large, and shows many creatures that seem to be evolutionary ancestors of other creatures. Creatures with rudimentary feathers, for example, used them to keep warm. And to suggest that the incompleteness of the fossil record is any way indicative of problems with evolution is naive, as it suggests that there should be fossilised remains of every creature that ever walked the Earth. What is amazing, is that no fossils have ever been inconsistent with evolutionary theory. -- Ec5618 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Ec5618. I want to respond to your last comment, that "no fossils have ever been inconsistent with evolutionary theory." Is it even hypothetically possible to produce a fossil that could disprove the evolutionary theory, given that the lack of fossils is the problem? Also, my questions go beyond an intuitive sense of the implausibility of macroevolution, though they definitely include that. I don't believe that the fossil record is merely "incomplete," but rather sorely lacking in necessary evidence of the gradualism of macroevolution. Steven J. Gould agrees:

“The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.”

"Evolution's Erratic Pace." Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977

Michael Denton continues this idea while alluding to the Cambrian explosion:

"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today."

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986)

I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know if there is a place for these sorts of quotes on the evolution page, or whether they fit better under Macroevolution, or if they are not "factual" enough to be included. I noticed under the Intelligent Design page (among others) there was more of a discussion of the nature of the controversy than there was a presentation of facts supporting the issue. So I am a little confused as to what is considered fair game for posting.LAInquiry 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate whether evolution or some other theory is best (though it might be fun to do it on the talk page ;). Get some notable sources about MACROEVOLUTION, gather information from them, insert it into the article and cite it. I found it to be pretty messy territory. Just for starters...try defining "species" in a way that works for fossils, dogs, bacteria, and ligers -Justforasecond 07:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, yes, theoretically a fossil could disprove evolution. But the odds of that happening are now rediculously small, not because the odds of finding that one fossil are small, but because virtually all fossils should then disprove evolution.

If evolution didn't happen, we should have found glaring inconsistencies in the fossil record; cows next to dinosaurs, 40 metres tall ferns next to house cats. We haven't. We have found thousands of fossils, all of which fit with established theory. And we keep finding new fossils, which all fit with established theory.

On top of which, every scientist knows that if ve could disprove evolution, ve would be remembered for generations, and would be rich beyond belief. If is, in a way, the holy grail of science: everyone is looking for it, yet no-one has found it. Let that be enough. -- Ec5618 01:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dichotomy

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)

The gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium debate you bring up here belongs elsewhere - perhaps on those pages. This debate, however, is a topic within the scope of the study of macroevolution. There is a real debate between these viewpoints - even though some lineages and characters may evolve either way - because of a history. Eldridge and Gould in a sense set up a straw man of gradualism to be knocked down by punc eq... but this my opinion.

What should be discussed more clearly in this article (as has been discussed with intermittent clarity on this talk page) is the real debate about whether there are truly different processes occuring at the macro (above species) and micro (within species) levels. Just because the species concept is problematic doesn't mean that we can't talk about speciation and processes that may occur on deeper evolutionary timescales. Safay 07:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro still needs rewriting

Check this out:

The term macroevolution refers to the emergence of new species and higher taxa through evolution, which, according to some cannot be explained using the gradual changes inherent in evolution. It is often used in the creation evolution controversy to refer to the part of evolution that cannot be directly observed, and contradicts scripture. The term 'species' has atleast six conflicting definitions making speciation difficult to define.

Most evolutionary biologists, among whom 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, and Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different processes. They essentially hold that sudden developmental 'spurts' are more important to the overall process of evolution than small incremental changes are.

Ignoring the mispellings, here are some problems I see with it.

1. From the first sentence, "gradual changes inherent in evolution" is clumsy and perhaps factually incorrect. And the "according to some" needs to be more specific ... only evolution deniers would say that small changes cannot add up into larger changes.
2. Macroevolution has been observed in the laboratory (See TalkOrigins), so saying it "cannot be directly observed" is simply false.
3. "Contradicting scripture" here is irrelevant, but even if a decision is made that it must stay, this needs to be a lot more clear exactly what it's talking about. How about at least referencing the Book of Genesis of the Bible.
4. I don't think it's correct to characterize Gould's punctuated equilibrium as saying that micro and macro evolution are different processes. Punctuated equilibrium merely says that evolution speeds up in spurts in times of fast environmental flux. He's not talking about an actually different kind of evolution. As for Schmalhausen and Waddington, I don't know anything about them ... are they even notable?

Well that's enough beating up on the intro for now. I just wanted to bring this here so we could discuss first. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As current definition seems to be saying that macroevolution is closely linked to speciation, how about something along these lines: "Macroevolution is the process of speciation (the emergence of species and higher taxa) through large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period". And make sure this article says things that aren't already covered in the Speciation article, otherwise why should it exist? PiCo 10:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the definitions online don't include anything about "large scale changes in gene frequencies". Also, it is tough to word, but there is a sense that macroevolution results in taxa that have distinct appearance (morphological concept of species). This has been dismissed before, but I think these definitions are a good place to start: [4] . -Justforasecond 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If most definitions don't mention "large scale changes" etc, then you'd better tell the folks over on the Microevolution page :). 203.221.81.154 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm new here, but I'll have a go.

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (generally described as changes in genotype frequencies) in populations that, in the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary thought, are the "normal" mode of evolution. Thus the process of speciation is the link between macroevolution and microevolution, and it falls within the perspective of either. Paleontology and evo-devo contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

Some examples of subjects whose study falls within the realm of macroevolution:

• The debate between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism
• Adaptive radiation
• Mass extinction
• Cambrian explosion

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

• It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes at all. Some will assert that there are no evolutionary processes that are not described by classical population genetics. This view is becoming less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
• The concept of macroevolution has been coopted by creationists. They use its controversy in evolutionary theory as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

I have to admit I don't know too much about the creationist use of this term, but I don't think there needs to be much mentioned about creationism in this article, except maybe a bit more about how they have coopted it for their purposes. However, surely it's a hotbutton issue and I'd hate to get embroiled in a debate here on wikipedia over it.

Please have a look at this and make suggestions on how to improve it. With a bit more time I think I can find the proper references, i.e., first use of the term, etc. I am mostly concerned about using too much jargon - I'm a biologist and this is a subject I have studied, so my perspective is tainted. Is this clear?

You know what, I just had another look at the page itself, and am going to be bold and change the intro to this. Sorry if I am being presumptive... And please edit my awful prose.

Safay 08:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Cambrian Explosion' exploded.

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)

Mr. Stevens- I thought the Cambrian Explosion was considered evidence against macroevolution. ~Mr. X 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

History of Macroevolution

Most of the material currently in this section can be found on the history of evolutionary thought page. I feel that it instead needs to be honed in on the key points of macroevolutionary thought vs. modern synthesis thought.

"Today, the synthetic model of evolution and punctuated equilibrium are alternative models for the theory of evolution."

Please note that macroevolutionary thought is not exclusive of population genetics. It only says that there are processes that occur above the level of genotype frequency change and "normal" speciation. It adds on top of the Modern Synthesis, it doesn't supplant it.

This erroneous view that macroevolutionary theory is in opposition to the Modern Synthesis is precicely the thing that the creationists have latched onto. No evolutionary biologist would ever assert that Modern Synthesis processes like genotype frequency change and allopatric speciation are unimportant in evolution - some would just like to assert that there are additionally other processes occuring at higher levels. The problem with the Modern Synthesis is that it was not truly whole synthesis - yes, it reconciled evidence from population genetics and Darwin (which is why it is also called "neo-Darwinian") but it left out evidence from developmental biology and paleontology that could not be explained through simple genotype frequency changes.

Sorry for the rant. This page needs a lot of work. I have to take a look at the Microevolution page before attempting any other changes - a wholesale reworking is in order.

Safay 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello, I'm RKM (Norway), I'm new to this, but I take the chance of making an absolute fool of myself. The term "macroevolution" is unsatisfactory, because it means too much, and too little. When non-darwinists talk about "macroevolution", they mean much more than just the appearance of new species. They mean the appearance of whole new classes, and this should be called megaevolution. I believe the whole editing talk about macroevolution will become a lot easier if you introduce the word megaevolution. The word macroevolution will then loose a lot of the significance and the ambiguity that it has today. Thanks!

Wikipedia is not in the business of defining words, I'm afraid. The goal is to catalogue knowledge, not shape it. -- Ec5618 10:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is unsatisfactory, but the fact is, it exists and it is used. Defining words is sometimes unavoidable in order to discuss or describe concepts and ideas, as Wikipedia tries to do. I don't have time to work on this article but there are a couple of important things that should be noted. First, the term "macroevolution" is defined very differently by evolutionary biologists and by creationists; this leads to endless confusion and the two groups tend to talk past each other because of this. Second, the term "macroevolution" as used by biologists has changed over time; in the older sense it meant something closer to how creationists now use the term, i.e., changes from one major group to another, such as the evolution of tetrapods from fish, or birds from dinosaurs, whereas biologists now use it to mean virtually any evolution above the level of species, including speciation itself. The flip side of this is that evolutionary biologists generally use "microevolution" to refer to changes occurring within species, whereas creationists regard as "microevolution" the evolutionary radiation of species within an entire genus (e.g., Equus). The differing usages of such terms must be noted for the articles to make any sense. MrDarwin 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MrDarwin. I tried to outline this by indicating that there are two seperate controversies, the one between the Modern Synthesis folks and evo-devo/paleo folks (i.e., whether there exist processes above the level of species that drive evolution), and the creationists vs. evolutionists, but it can be much clearer. You outline a third distinction that recognizes the historical change of the term (that is, it emerged from the paleo people and has now reached a broader focus in the context of the levels of selection debate) that should be included in the history section. It's interesting to see the various contributors' points of view get fed into this page as it develops. This is the first time I've been involved in a (albeit mildly) controversial page in its earlier stages of "evolution." Frustrating but fascinating on its own level. Clearly this topic requires research beyond online resources or just a single printed reference. My next task is to try to put together a reference list. Thanks again.

Safay 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging

One is a fact and one is a theory, why merge them? They're two related but seperate ideas. It'd be like if we merged the pages for England and Scotland. --Scorpios 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Scorpios, I am glad you have started a thread on this.

I don't quite follow your analogy between England and Scotland and this issue of macro- and microevolution merger. England and Scotland exist quite well each as their own entity; the existence of one as a geographic object does not depend on the other. The idea of "microevolution" does not exist on its own, it only exists in contrast to the idea that there are macroevolutionary patterns and processes. See adam's comments above.

Can you show how the understanding of one is not contingent upon the other?

As another point, you bring up that one is a "fact" and the other a "theory." I would argue that both are facts and theories. The patterns we observe are "facts," if you want to use the word "fact" at all; most scientists would prefer to just call them observations. We observe both macro- and microevolutionary patterns. The scientific explanations for the processes underlying these patterns are all based on theory. This is how science works; there is no getting around that. With both macro- and microevolutionary thought, the explanations are theory. That theory is tested with both historical and experimental evidence. There are some evolutionary biologists who would assert that we need invoke no more than microevolutionary processes to explain the evolution of life; there are others who would invoke macroevolutionary processes. This is a debate independent of any creationist/evolutionist debate.

Safay 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we merge good and evil while we're at it ;) Justforasecond 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

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)

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)

Criticisms of macroevolution

I read through this and counted the number of "scholarly" (non-religous) criticisms, then I read through again to tally up the number of reliable sources provided for the criticisms. At no point in this process was I required to remove my shoes to perform advanced calculations on my toes. In both cases, the number is zero. Frankly, I think it is simply absurd to include religous criticisms on a scientific topic. Compared to the number of "qualified" opinions on the subject, Creationists are a miniscule minority, and to mention them at all, even briefly, is to give them undue weight. It simply isn't relevant here. I'm going to cut this back severely, and we might consider removing it entirely. If anyone objects to my action, I'm more than willing to discuss it here. Doc Tropics 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strike it down, boyo. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I really don't think it merits any more detail than it has now; the so-called criticisms are nonsense and there is no need to accord them further mention.

Although creationists are in the minority, I think that people coming to this article will generally be looking for information about creationists. It's mostly creationists who talk about macroevolution. --Brilliand 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

However, this article is for information on macroevolution, not what people say about macroevolution. GSlicer (t • c) 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the majority of the US and the world are creationists. 209.101.205.82 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look up a poll of people who have problems with evolution, you will find that while a significant minority of the United States has problems with evolution, it is not a majority (I think it is about 44% if I remember correctly). Also, only about 5% of scientists have significant problems with evolution. With regards to scholarly criticisms, scholarly does not mean non-religious. If it did, then nothing in the field of theology could be considered scholarly. That having been said, just because an article has certain implications does not automatically discredit it's claims, so long as they are backed with sound empirical findings. Perhaps a better source of criticism of evolution would be found from Intelligent Design theorists, who claim to only be presenting evidence that indicates a design to the universe that could not be explained by evolution, and not necessarily dictating what this designer may be or its nature, thereby avoiding pseudoscience and supernatural references.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.0.180 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2007

As Kitzmiller and the DI have confirmed, "intelligent design" is a euphemism for "creation science" – they differ as to whether, as the DI claims, creation-science has various definitions and theirs is sort of science provided you redefine science, or as Kitzmiller found, ID is creationism. Last figures I saw, it was under 1% of scientists who disagree with evolution in principle, depends a bit on whether you count engineers and theologians with a science degree as scientists. ..... dave souza, talk 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

modern synthesis -- 2x

the modern synthesis is cited as being coined in the 30s and the 60s....which is it?

Amarilloarmadillo 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Macroevolution Impossible?

There are many points of macroevolution which could be called an "unconfirmed hypothesis". Why not include how it is unknown whether a species can microevolve to a point where the number of alleles changes. I am new at wikipedia but I don't understand why such a large and controversial topic remains a medium sized article. Aidepolcycne eerf 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? Macroevolution is scientifically uncontroversial. Guettarda 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to qualify that? As part of the creation-evolution controversy, macroevolution is controversial. I agree that it isn't a huge topic, though - it's only a small part of the controversy.

"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.[5] [6]"

This needs changed for neutrality, I think. The second part could be changed to "Creationists claim" instead of putting quotes (implying nonsense) around Creationist terminology. Also, using the word "co-opted" suggests that they had no right to use the term. Do Creationists change the meaning, or just side with one group of evolutionists? --Brilliand 16:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of creationists accept 'macroevolution'. And is talkorigins a reliable source? The pope is a creationist. And so was the last pope also and they seem to accept evolution. 209.101.205.82 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Care to qualify that?" I did qualify that - I said that it's scientifically uncontroversial, not religiously uncontroversial. (Macro)evolution is a scientific concept. Religio-politically motivated on-scientists (creationists) have chosen to use it in a misleading fashion...hence "co-opted". Guettarda 19:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted my edit, citing "not an improvement." I don't think it's right that you're enforcing your own wording like that, especially with what I see as a serious POV issue - ridiculing the other side. I didn't say as much as you did, but I think I said it more neutrally, not implying which side is right. Also, I think answersingenesis is a better source than talkorigins when it comes to finding out what Creationists believe. --Brilliand 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You replaced a paragraph which had real information and which was based on a secondary source with one that had almost no meaningful information, was based on a primary source, and was not at all encyclopaedic in tone. Guettarda 06:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thelordsavenger 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) evolution is a foolish theory which has no basis in reality. micro evolution is a provable fact but it in no way could cause speciation. would you please explain the evolution of the eye to me? or the puzzling lack of transitional fossils of which there should be billions? also, when was it decided that life could spring from nothing and that a small point with absolute mass could somehow randomly expand at high speed? also, i believe that if you look a little closer you will find that evolutionists are in short supply. enjoy living in ignorance.

This page is for improving the article, not educating those who dogmatically refuse to accept the information provided to them. See WP:TALK and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. .. dave souza, talk 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV template

This article focusses heavily on the "contraversy" of the subject matter without any focus on other relevant areas. Specifically the science of the term macroeveolution, and the history of its usage. The tone(e.g. word choices such as "evolutionist") of the article seem to be originated from creationist attacks on the theory of evolution rather than proper scientific terminology. As a counter-example, compare this article to the one on Microevolution. i kan reed 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What word do you think should be substituted for 'evolutionist'? And should the term 'creationist' not be used also? 69.211.150.60 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it does depend on the context. Scientists have particular titles. Evolutionary biologist for those who study evolution in life. Particular focuses have different names. i kan reed 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to clutter the article with the longer technical terms - we can treat creation and evolution the same way. "-ist" doesn't have to refer to a religion.

What are people going to come here looking for? What Creationists mean when they say Macroevolution or what evolutionary biologists say to each other about it? --Brilliand 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The term has an established scientific meaning. Creationists have chosen to spin that meaning into something which amounts to "things I claim aren't possible". The article should give priority to explaining what the term really means. Guettarda 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Its older meaning is close to what is used by Creationists (see MrDarwin's comments above). If there is controversy as to the meaning of the word, we must give every definition clearly. Wikipedia isn't the place to solve this sort of controversy. And I think most people are going to come here wondering what a Creationist is talking about. --Brilliand 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think most people are going to come here wondering what a Creationist is talking about" - yes, so the article should explain what macroevolution is. Do you have a single creationist definition of macroevolution, one that is used by all, or even most of them? Do you have a secondary source which gives this definition? They don't use it to mean anything other than "things I don't want to accept". Each one draws the line somewhere different. Guettarda 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the beginning of the article. I think the term macroevolution is mainly used by creationists - the article should say "creationists use this term to mean this, and science does not agree" That's what I wrote. I don't think it is correct to say that their views are based on misunderstanding of a controversy within biology - these are not scientists and their views are mostly based on their own religious beliefs and/or what they see as "common sense."

Best Creationist definition I've found: Appearance of new genetic information, based on information theory[7].

I don't expect to find any contradictory definition by a Creationist with a decent degree, although anything's possible. Of course the gung-ho ignorant creationists that pop up on message boards can say anything. I was there once. --Brilliand 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we still have these NPOV tags here? As far as I can see, they exist solely because creationists don't want to accept that macroevolution happens (for religious reasons). That's not a legitimate reason for tagging the article. I'll take them out. --Robert Stevens 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

citing a definition

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 [8]:

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)

Isn't the concept of species (at least for organisms that reproduce sexually) closely tied to whether or not particular male-female pairings are or are not productive? Currently it appears that horses and donkeys are still close enough (as are lions and tigers) that they can have offspring - even if the offspring may be sterile.) For speciation the mutations that matter (that produce divergent species) are those that make sexual reproduction fail. Asserting that there's a distinction (a barrier) between microevolution and macroevolution seems to be equivalent to an assertion that no mutation can ever occur that produces offspring that can no longer mate with members of the original species or other offspring in a different part of the pedigree. At the time of the split there's extremely small differences between the two populations that are now mutually infertile. Once the populations become separated (a microevolution step) they diverge precisely because they cannot interbreed. (If mating behaviors develop such that the two subpopulations do not interbreed even though they could then the same divergence can occur. --Minasbeede 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissput about neutrality and factual accuracy

It seems to me that the section on critisism isn't critasizing anything. It shows an uneven favor to macroevelotion as well as doesn't give any evedence when he says "The evedence is overwehlming". When I put tables up saying it is uneven they get deleated clearly showing the desperation that eveolotionists have not to show any other viewpoints at all so people don't know anything else. The critesisems section is ment for critesisms not for some "scholer" to say how stupid anyone that critesizes it is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin012 (talk • contribs)

I removed the tag because, at the time, nobody had presented any argument for it. And you still haven't identified any factually-incorrect statement in the article. It's quite common for creationists to tag this article because it says things that go against their religious beliefs: but that is not sufficient reason to use this tag. It is a fact that macroevolution is not scientifically controversial: it has been observed, and all the available evidence supports it. --Robert Stevens 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed the tag again, after you put it back with the comment "Leave it up it needs to be edited to show fair representation". I left it up for awhile, but you still haven't provided any explanation of what you mean by "fair representation". If you think this article is going to discuss creationism in detail (I'm guessing here, based on your use of "evolutionist")... nope, that's not going to happen. This is a science article, not a creationism article. The views of creationists have already been mentioned: "Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science." I suggest you read Wikipedia policy on this: specifically, WP:UNDUE. Perhaps also Evolution as theory and fact and Evidence of common descent. --Robert Stevens 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that this section of the artical is bias but not beacuse creationism isn't represented but beacuse contering scintific evedence and scintific veiw points are neglected. The criticisms section is ment to show what all the criticisms are from an un-bias point of view. This section is wrighten like a pro-evolution book while it is suposed to be like an encyclopedia. More of a list than some thing suporting it. The part of the factuality being qustioned is the part about "The evedence is overwhelming" yet their is no listed evedence nor do many people beleave their is an "overwhelming" amount of evedence. I may be a creationist but I also have done reaserch and I find that compared to the evedence for macro eveolution is veary small compared to the scintific, geological, and mathmatical evedence against it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin012 (talk • contribs)

Macroevolution is an ongoing process which has been directly observed to occur (speciation has been observed), and there is plenty of evidence that it has occurred in the past (the fossil record, DNA evidence etc: basically, all the evidence for common descent). There isn't any "countering scientific evidence". There is creationist propaganda, but if we were to add that, we'd also have to explain why it's wrong. There is already an article similar to that: Objections to evolution. If there are arguments not covered there, it would be more appropriate to expand that article. --Robert Stevens 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is still wrighten for a highly bias point of view and sence their is an objections to evolution page and a evedence for eveolution page why have that section... Oh and would you agree we are arguing? I would say you would. Would you agree that an argument and a disspute are the same thing? Then we are dissputing the factual accuracy and neutrality of this section. So while we disspute leave up the tag that says that their is a disspute. Oh and I would say a good portion of the population beleaves is some sort of creationism so it is not a minority. So the artical should not be wrighten trying to impose a contreversal point of view. No biasism should be showed to such a contreversal topic. Oh this is one more thing from a scientist. "The first reason is that scientists are indoctrinated at a very early age to become macroevolutionists" "The next reason so many scientists believe in macroevolution is a consequence of the first. Those of us who do not believe in macroevolution are regularly ridiculed on college campuses" Dr. L. Wile. Colin012 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah... didn't know that children become scientists "at a very early age", nor did I know there are "macroevolutionists".

If there would be any evidence supporting creationist viewpoint about macroevolution, plenty of scientists would become creationists. However, there isn't any evidence. Please do go and read the articles Evolution as theory and fact, Evidence of common descent but mostly Objections to evolution. Also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rule about fringe theories.

What exactly is wrong with the article? Section "Criticisms of macroevolution" is not written well (frankly, it is a mess apparently originating when text from several textbooks was mixed together) and have more sources, other then that I see no bias in it. I'll tag it with {{Cleanup}}, though.

-- Sander Säde 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is only a "controversial topic" among religious fundamentalists, mostly within the "Bible belt" of the central/southern United States: whereas Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. It is not customary to use such tags to indicate religious disagreement: otherwise we'd have to use them on the articles for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc (as every religion disagrees with various claims of every other religion). As far as I can see, the article is no more "biased" than reality itself. we live in a world where evolution is an observed fact and creationism is a myth. As the article doesn't actually say that, it is already less biased than reality. --Robert Stevens 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Only amoung fundamentalists? In this articles it says many mainstream scientists have a problem with it. The other bothersome thing is the term 'creationists'. I think the term bible literalists would be a better term science there are so many types of creationsits and to put say the Pope, St Augustine in the same category as Ken Hovind is misrepresentation. Massachew 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not evident from a quick reading that this article says anything like "many mainstream scientists have a problem with it", but if it does then that misleading impression should be changed. The term "fundamentalists" relates to the Christian literalists who supported the "5 fundamentals" in the 1910s, and co-opted the term "Creationism" from 1929 on to refer to their brand of anti-evolution. Neither the Pope nor St Augustine fit in that category. .. dave souza, talk 14:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is where I have problems with this and other articles. You are saying that even though the Pope and St. Augustine believe that God created the universe they are not creationists? And what do you mean by co-opting a term? So what would you call someone like the Pope who believes God created the universe if not a creationist? And what term would you apply to a person who believes that life came about soley through natural means? It seems either you believe that humans came about throught natural means or else you are an extremist like Hovind. This misrepresents a lot of good people who have religious beliefs and are not extreme, anti-science. Massachew 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Creationist" is the label adopted by modern evolution-deniers. Most scientifically-aware modern theists prefer the term "Theistic evolution". This is the mainstream position of the Roman Catholic Church and most of the major Protestant denominations. As for Augustine: this was somewhat before his time (though even he explicitly denied a literal interpretation of Genesis). --Robert Stevens 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a cite where the 'evolution deniers' adopted this term. And you did not address my issue. What labels would you give the groups I mentioned above?

And what term would you apply to a person who believes that life came about soley through natural means?

Now I know a lot of groups say they are 'Christians' meaning fundamentalist. But is this saying that the Pope is not a 'christian'?

There are many terms that are misused but I do see why an encyclopedia should use the colloquial meaning rather than the true meaning of a term. And it seems in these articles the term creationist is used as if being a creationist is a bad thing. Are all creationists bad people? That is the impression I am getting here. Massachew 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The respected historian Ron Numbers states "For decades to come various Christian groups, from flood geologists to theistic evolutionists, squabbled over which camp most deserved to use the creationist label. However, by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history." What references do you have to support your claim that revisions are needed to this article? Be aware that reliable sources are needed, and the article must comply with NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

"At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear."

And could you answer: are all bible literalist creationists bad? Again the tone here seems to imply that. I do not think wiki is the place to make value judgements.

So if in your opinion people who believe the above are not creationists then how would you label them? See that is the problem. You have an entire group of people who are actually the majority that cannot be labeled because of the misuses of terms in these articles. Massachew 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion and in the opinion of most authorities, creationists are religious. This is an article about a science subject, evolution, and as such deals with it as science. Religious opposition to the findings of science is covered in articles in accordance with NPOV policy as pointed out above. As it happens, the reference you give goes on to say "The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992)." They're citing Ron Numbers as an expert opinion. Anyway, WP:TALK requires discussion here to be about improving the article, and you seem to be getting well off topic. Unless you've specific proposals for improving the article, this section should be archived. .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am not off subject. I am trying to make my case to change this sentence:

Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject.

They have not 'adopted' a term. They simply feel that macroevolution is not possible. The sentence should be deleted. The phrasing is POV.

It should say:

Some creationists do not accept that macroevolution is possible.

Massachew 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be inaccurate: the previous wording is accurate. Creationists use an alternative definition of "macroevolution": for instance, they typically claim that evolution is possible only within "created kinds" (an unscientific concept) and call this "microevolution" (when it would actually be macroevolution, as it includes speciation). --Robert Stevens 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

And the above is POV.

Is there a source for this very negative statement. This seems to be OR. When did someone say 'evolutionists' doubt evolution? That is a logical fallacy. Massachew 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's a source, it's a direct quote of Stephen Jay Gould! And the "fallacy" is being perpetrated by the creationists that Gould is criticising here. --Robert Stevens 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference added. ... dave souza, talk 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really do not see any source that says creationists use a different defintion. The definition is straightforward. Evolution above the species level. You can accept it or not accept it.

Also just because one person who is from one side of an issue says something does not mean it is true. Sounds like cherry picking to me.

Now Catholics believe in the virgin birth which is against science. Well I think you understand the point.

I think wiki should be neutral so I still think this is a better sentence:

Some creationists do not accept that macroevolution is possible. I do not see how they 'adopted' the term.

Massachew 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I have never come across any creationist who actually does not accept macroevolution: certainly, the major creationist organisations such as AiG accept macroevolution. Indeed, they require very rapid macroevolution in order to get the present range of species from the few that would fit on Noah's Ark. And there are too many examples of macroevolution that are obvious even to creationists: wolf and dog, horse and donkey, African elephant and Indian elephant, even lion and tiger (which can interbreed in captivity to produce sterile hybrids). But they generally don't call this macroevolution, even though it involves speciation. I would like to see some evidence that a significant number of creationists reject real macroevolution: creationists who believe that every species is entirely unrelated to any other, and speciation has never occurred. --Robert Stevens 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Again I think you are grouping bible literalists with those who believe in creation but not a literal translation of the bible. I think this is a problem with these articles in general.

But the direct point is:

Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject.

Do you feel this sentence should be modified? The wording is awkward at least. Massachew 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When was macro eveolution ever observed? Oh and macro eveolution refers to a change in the number of chromosomes. That is something that is not seen when frute flies change color or their are new breeds of dogs. Oh and that horse thing doesn't show macro eveolution either. It shows a small horse and then a bigger horse not a bacterium to a huaman. Also a single cell orginisme can't possably turn into a multi cellure orginisim with millions of diffrent kinds of cells that each perform a spicific task. Also once again creationism is not a minority. People all around the world are creationists. People if africa, china, japan, iceland, ect. are creationists. Oh and the artical is still realy bias. "Never the less some religios sects object to it." Plus you your self said that eveolution isn't a religion so it shouldn't be classified as one. It is a contreversal topic. Christans don't edit hindue articals to try to prove hinduism wrong. Evolution is a contreversal scientific hypothisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.12.128 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... I don't think you know anything about evolution. Macroevolution does not refer to "change in the number of chromosomes". Both speciation and change in number of chromosomes has been observed repeatedly - see Speciation and article about changes in chromosome number during evolution.

And as far as scientists go, evolution is not controversial, as there isn't even a single fact proving evolution wrong - and there are millions examples of evolution at work. It is controversial only according to creationists. Also, creationism exists almost solely in the United States, having almost no supporters elsewhere (see here).

One more thing. Colin, could you please use spell checker? Mozilla Firefox comes with inbuilt spell check and is free. It really would make your messages easier to read.

-- Sander Säde 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Oh and that horse thing doesn't show macro eveolution either. It shows a small horse and then a bigger horse...": Colin, if this is a reference to my "horse and donkey" example and you accept that horses and donkeys share common ancestry, then you have accepted macroevolution (they are separate species). Furthermore, even by your own (false) definition of macroevolution (change in chromosome count), macroevolution is an established fact.

Tags are supposed to indicate problems with the article itself. Your personal misunderstandings (hopefully now resolved) are not problems with the article itself.

As for your other comments: humans didn't evolve from "bacteria", but there isn't any evidence against the generally-accepted theory that they evolved from single-celled eukaryotes (and there's plenty of evidence of shared ancestry: DNA, cell structure etc), and "transitional forms" between single-celled and multi-celled organisms still exist (Volvox, Sponge etc).

So, apparently none of your objections have any substance. --Robert Stevens 12:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh it does indicate a problem with the artical being writen with bias. Oh and they have just as much substence as your objections to creationism. You don't give any information. Where is your evedence of change in chromosome count. All you say is that it is an established "fact" without giving any evedence. Oh and DNA doesn't show anything that macro eveolution existing. Remember the whole cytochrome C issue? Also the eveolution of the horse was knocked out by Dr.Raup over 20 years ago. Oh and Volvox and sponge arn't trsitional forms. Volvox is a large eukaryotic colony. I don't see how a sponge is an example the have mesenchyme sevral diffrent kinds of cells. You are also avoiding manny of my points focusing on other ones. The ones you chose to. Oh and remember their is no such thing as a simple lifeform. Oh you also ignore molecular biology.

I still say the artical is writen with bias. Many people in Africa. Places in England and all over europe. The whole nation of Isral. ect. -colin012 76.210.12.128 22:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see your points. Why can't there be an article that brings up these points? The chromozone evidence is against macroevolution. Why are these points hidden? Massachew 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I honestly can't tell if your being sarcastic or not. - Colin012 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not being sarcastic. There are a lot observations that do not fit into evolutionary theory. The chromozones and C chrome are 2 among many. And the ontogenies. It would be nice to have article mentioning those. Mysteries of evolution. Unsolved areas of evolution. It is very interesting. Massachew 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an article (Objections to evolution) but it doesn't mention these. but you are right and it is wrong to write this article with a ton of favor when there is a lot of people that object to evolution. - Colin012 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

“ WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE CREATIONIST DEFINITION OF MACROEVOLUTION

To a biologist, the "it’s just microevolution" argument is painfully obtuse. In normal science, microevolution refers to evolutionary processes within gene pools, such as the original and spread of individual gene variants. Macroevolution refers to evolutionary processes that work across separated gene pools. Speciation, a process that can be observed in nature, and that creationists accept, is the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution, because speciation occurs when one gene pool permanently splits into two separate gene pools. A speciation event is a case of macroevolution. So are other events that apply to whole gene pools, such as extinction.

For biologists, then, the microevolution/macroevolution distinction is a matter of scale of analysis and not some ill-defined level of evolutionary newness. Studies that examine evolution at a course scale of analysis are also macroevolutionary studies, because they are typically looking at multiple species – separate branches on the evolutionary tree. Evolution within a tingle twig on the tree, by contrast, is microevolution.

”

Matzke, Nicholas J. and Paul R. Gross. 2006. Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy. pp 28-56 in Not in Our Classrooms. Nuff said. 72.200.212.123 05:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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)

Please see Theory#Science. Did you know that gravitation is still only a theory, too? -- Sander Säde 06:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware. Intelligent Design is a theory as well. Theories are ideas with proof supporting, but not enough to be called fact. I believe the Bible is the answer to the theory, but I understand why you or anyone wouldn't think of that as proof. So far, God cannot be disproven, as well as macroevolution. And I don't mind if Intelligent Design is marked as unprovable theory. Macroevolution does have significant amount of proofs, such as the wolf as a link between species. But there are a great many things in nature that are unexplainable, and to Christians, is proof of God. As long as people know that macroevolution is still labeled as "theory". Explaining a theory as fact is wrong, especially in the religious sense. Religion and science are left to be chosen by the individual as fact or fiction. Even such a thing as gravity, it seems real to us, it might seem to be fiction to another. It is our job to display the proofs, the rest is up to them to accept as fact. -Yancyfry (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Faith in God is all I really need. I know that God is real, I do not need any more proof than what He has done in my life and the lives of others. It is true that I sound like an ignorant buffoon who refuses to listen to logic, but truly, science and God go hand in hand. When you conduct scientific studies, you are simply finding out how God's creation works. Everything depends on faith. -Yancyfry (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yancyfry:

Please keep the following in mind.

Personal faith in God is fine. I have nothing against it. However, personal faith in God should not be a scientific argument. Even if you believe that God transcends science, which is ok by me- you can have your own opinion- it is scientifically better to argue about Intelligent Design than Creationism. I believe that ID only implies that there is a higher power than humans who perhaps created the universe. I don't think it's as concrete as Creationism, which specifically states that God created the universe.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's mostly right.

Sincerely,

Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Views??

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)

It seems that the two are different. One since we observe microevolution all the time and macroevolution is rarely observed. Are there not any biologist who believe they are different. None at all? Massachew 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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)--Uncle Ed 22:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

The article has serious problems regarding balance - chief among them are the history and criticisms. The history is long, rambling and unbalanced. The criticisms are unreferenced and belong in the history of evolutionary thought. There's really no rhyme or reason to what's included here. Guettarda 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cut out some of the junk. Now what we need is to say something about the topic. Guettarda 05:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed material

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)

google search on macroevoluton

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) 

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)

I really do not see how creationists misuse this word. The meaning is clear cut. Now creationists may not believe that macroevolution happens the same way evolutionists do but the meaning is the same to both groups. You really think macro and micro are the same thing. By definition they are very different. Hignit (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Raspor. I should have known. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This I think is unnecesarry:

'Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject.'

Why even bring that up? Do we mention the opions of flat-earthers in geography articles? Or do we mention astrology in psychology articles? Or do we mention voodoo in psychotherapy articles?

In so many of these articles so much empahsis is put on what 'creationists' think. I think the constant attention to them gives their point of view more credence. Hignit (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. However, it seems that the term is probably used more by creationists than by actual scientists. Even though it is a genuine scientific term (which doesn't mean what they want it to mean), it seems to be a fairly obscure and little-used one. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Stevens. For the sake of clarity, the (mis)use of the term by those who want to have their cake and eat it by driving a wedge between "micro" and "macro" evolution needs to be covered. Creationist pseudoscience is probably the context in which most people will come across the word "macroevolution", and this article does need to cover that ground clearly. Snalwibma (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just googled 'macroevolution' and most of the hits were scientific organizations or articles. In fact I think out of the first 20 only one was creationist. Now look at the article on the halocaust. There is virtually no mention of halocaust denial. I think most people avoid wacky sites. Who goes to say neo-nazi sites. I think few. I tink a lot of times this plays into the creationist hand. I think its overkill. The more you mention them the more credible they get. Hignit (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Six of the first 20 hits are creationist. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To Robert Stevens: I am sorry, but it appears that you show significant bias when distinguishing between "Creationists" and "actual scientists". If it is your opinion that Creationists are not and can not be "actual scientists", for whatever reason, then, frankly, I cannot much respect you.

By the way, has anyone hear seen the play/movie 12 Angry Men? In it, there are 12 jurors, and during the play, one of them makes a scathing denunciation of people who were born in slum villages.

However, this juror makes the crucial mistake of saying that, based on his personal experience, no person ever born in a slum village can ever amount to anything. This is an obvious and foolish stereotype.

So, in closing, to Mr. Stevens: if that is your true opinion, about all creationists everywhere, then, quite frankly, I do not care how intelligent you are, if you are truly that ignorant. You are seemingly implicitly calling Creationists to be somehow less human than you and other macroevolutionists are. Do you truly believe that is the case?

I wish you the best, although we may not agree on what that is.

Sincerely, Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk) (03:45, 7 December 2007

Yeah, saw the film. It's the bloody architect persuades the other jurors to look at the facts more objectively ;) Anyway, Creationism as redefined by fundamentalists in 1929 and Morris in 1961 is anti-evolution based on anti-science. Some Creationists have done science, but stop doing science when they turn to Creationism. See Behe. ... dave souza, talk 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing less bias than Stevens. But, out of curiosity (and when I say excuse my ignorance, I'm not trying to be sarcastic) what anti-science is Creationism based on? While I am not unable to believe that macroevolution (or certainly at least microevolution) is an observable act of science, I don't know that I could say that Creationism, or at least the theory of intelligent design, is based on anti-science.

Thanks Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let me see... I think a fair summary would be that creationism is "anti-science" in the sense that it rejects the whole scientific basis on which geology, biology, astronomy etc. are based. Is that "anti-science" enough for you? Snalwibma (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What's that? The atom? ~Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

and by the way, if and when I sound stupid, I apologize. I'm just trying to understand this stuff better, and wikipedia is one of the most convenient ways of doing so. Thanks. ~Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of fields that would be discarded by accepting creationism are as long as your arm. Most of physics. Yes, including atomic physics and nuclear physics (ever hear of radioactivity, for example?). Most of chemistry. Most of biology. Most of geology. Most of geophysics. Most of linguistics. Most of astronomy. Most of anthropology and archaeology. Most of paleontology. Most of cosmology. Most of history. Most of meteorology. In fact, open the prisons and let every criminal out; you have no evidence to hold them any more since any evidence can be put there by "magic". Close all the courts. Fire all the police. Look, the Muslims tried this 1000 years ago when Al Ghazali published The Incoherence of the Philosophers. What was the most advanced society in scientific, medical and technical areas in a few short years went from the world leader to among the most primitive backward group of societies on the planet. Thanks to the same reasoning the creationists want to apply to modern science. If you want that, be my guest, but do not think you have the right or duty to impose that sort of nosense on everyone else by force. Creationists are the closest thing to pure unadulterated evil walking the planet. Just my opinion...--Filll (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the scientific knowledge to decide whether or not I can agree with you. This is slightly unrelated, but I remember hearing somewhere that Darwin did not find many "transitional links" (if that's the correct terminology) between different species groups. Is there a different type of macroevolutionistic belief (e.g. modern synthesis) that avoids that? Or have sufficient transitional links been found?

And, by the way, thank you for stating that it is your opinion. I don't have a well-formed opinion, so I'm definitely not going to impose it on you by force. If I did have one, I hope the result would be much the same. ~Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Behold the Wub. More transitional fossils keep being found, and every time one is found it means that there's another gap on either side of it, so the number "missing" keeps increasing ;) ... dave souza, talk 22:48, 16 December 2007

Basically you're saying that more and more transitional links are being found. However, how do you know they are transitional links? Is there some definitive way to find out whether a fossil is a fossil of a transitional link, or not?

And, by the way, if you mean to send the link to Philip K. Dick, a sci-fi novelist, could you tell me what you wanted information you wanted my to see there? It doesn't, at first glance, seem altogether relevant...thanks. ~Mr. X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.20 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 December 2007

Ouch. Fans think of it as SF, sci-fi is Star Trek and the like. Just a piece of word association, you accidentally typed two letters one over so that the name came out as Darwub, and I was reminded of a work by the great Dick which, unaccountably, is not highlighted on that page. My apologies. We have a wub here, and this issue came up ages ago at User talk:The wub/archive02#Your username which explains all. Well recommended. .. dave souza, talk 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Ah! Found it at Beyond Lies the Wub! .. dave souza, talk 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your posts by placing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Even better, please get an account and sign your posts with your logon in the same way.

People are constantly discussing where a new fossil falls in the taxonomic trees. Sometimes the classification schemes get rearranged with new information. The decisions, as far as I know, are based on consensus by the scientific community.-Filll (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But my question, more particularly, was how can one say, definitively, that a fossil should be considered a transitional link and not simply a fossil of an animal that is believed to be similar to other animals? (or plants, bacteria, etc.)

Thanks, Mr. X 18:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My amateur understanding is that all organisms are transitional, and the term is used in particular for fossils that show features unique to other similar groups, strongly indicating that they are related, and have adaptations or functions that fall between those of other related species. For a fun example see Indohyus which, published yesterday, shows a dramatic change in our understanding of the Evolution of cetaceans. Check the links, this one shows a nice picture of one having a swim. A much older example found a couple of years ago is the fish Tiktaalik which had fins that worked like limbs (only the front ones were found, so far), a ribcage suggesting land dwelling, a neck that could swivel like a crocodile and the ability to breathe air, all linking it to the later tetrapods which were land dwelling. The suggestion is that limbs proved useful in the weed-filled river estuary it lived in, and its descendants became increasingly able to cross overland. ... dave souza, talk 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears you are saying that a fossil is considered a transitional link if it appears to be very close to or shows "features unique to" other fossils or groups of fossils. That makes sense.

Although something else occurred to me just now: how can we be sure that the differences in transitional links (which are somewhat small, else the fossils would not be considered transitional links) are not evidence of macroevolution but microevolution? How can we know that they are changes at or above the species level (macroevolution) and not below the species level (microevolution)?

Thanks and Merry Christmas, Mr. X (13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

I think you are confused, Mr. X. Evidence for evolution, as near as I can tell as an outsider (not a biologist, but another kind of scientist), falls in 4 categories:

• laboratory evidence (we have seen speciation in laboratory experiments, which creationists used to call macroevolution, but now that it was seen, they might not, depending on the creationist)
• field evidence (we have seen speciation in field observations, say of plants on either side of the Great Wall of China, or in Tilipia, or in nylon eating bacteria; again, creationists might or might not call these speciation events macroevolution depending on the creationist)
• fossil evidence (speciation evidence in fossil record, with 100s of millions of fossils)
• DNA and genetic evidence (for example, a telomere in the middle of a human chromosome-number 2 I think)

All of these show evidence of speciation events. All of these might or might not be called evidence of macroevolution, depending on the creationist involved.

The problem is, you cannot argue with a creationist who is dead set on rejecting all logic and all rationality and all data because they want to preserve the illusion that the bible is literally true. It is impossible. You just have to drive home one point, as far as I am concerned. Creationists are allowed to believe anything they want-they can believe the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese. However, creationists are not allowed to use force to try to induce others believe the nonsense and lies they personally have chosen to believe. This antisocial behavior is unacceptable, and will always be unacceptable, and will be met with the most intense and severe resistance you can imagine. Merry Christmas. --Filll (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was confused earlier. I'm not sure at this point. Regardless, you say that speciation events could be considered macroevolution or not considered macroevolution, depending on the person. I imagine your view is that speciation events are evidence of macroevolution. Hence, my question:

Is it arbitrary to say whether this speciation is evidence of macroevolution or not? If not, why is it not?

Also, what you said about creationists holds true for macroevolutionists as well. Macroevolutionists can believe anything they want to; they can believe that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of green cheese. However, macroevolutionists are not allowed to use for to try to induce others to believe what they have personally chosen to believe. This is unacceptable, and will always be unacceptable. Whether one believes strongly in the Bible, atheism, monism, or magic, such impositions of opinion will always be unacceptable.

Mr. X (14:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

This has gone on long enough. No one is forcing you to believe in macroevolution. Do as you like. This page is only for improving the article, and you do not seem interested in that. This conversation makes no sense and it is not about improving the article. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I've tried several times to edit the article by making it less NPOV. However, each time I do this someone keeps deleting what I put in. I'm not sure the IP address or user name of the deleting person(s), but shouldn't 3RR come into play at some point?

Thanks, Mr. X (16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Hey, could some one check out this page: http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Microevolution_is_distinct_from_macroevolution I would like to know if some of the data included (or just the link) can be placed in the article under "Objections to macroevolution". It seems that since "talk origins" (which seems to be bias) is allowed as "verifiable", shouldn't this creationwiki link be for simply stating the facts (it is a page in response to the talkorigins page used here)? It seems that the only reason wiki won't allow this is because evolutions try to say that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same, however they provide no evidence that this is true. Shouldn't another view be allowed to expresses itself in the objections section at least. Where can we get objections to place in that section if we can't post anything because the source is considered "not verifiable"? Seems a little unfair for the community as a whole. Thanks, Adelphospro (Jan 24, 08 9:24 EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelphospro (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikis are not "reliable sources" primarily because anyone can edit them. I can go there right now and change the article to read "creationism is false". Also, creationwiki doesn't "state the facts": there is abundant evidence for macroevolution, and for "increasing information" (which has been observed to happen many times). And while TalkOrigins presents the views of mainstream science, creationism is not scientific and has been disproved by science: see WP:UNDUE. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Im curious to how your statement that "creationism is not scientific and has been disproved by science" in true? I have yet to see evidence that disproves creationism & evidence that clearly supports macro-evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelphospro (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.234.64 (talk)

Well several courts have ruled that creationism and creation science are not scientific, including the US Supreme court on a couple of occasions. That might be a place to start. Also, I listed a bunch of evidence above for macroevolution. A lot more is available if you are willing to read and absorb a little.--Filll (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Filll: what do you have againts creationists? You sound as if you think all creationists are trying to force their beliefs on others. This from the start is wrong. We're not, we are trying to show the Evolutionary world that creationism is a scientific theory, as is evolution. But how can you prove Macroevolution? You cant, because it cannot be proven, recreated, or experamented with. The process takes way to much time. In laymans terms can you prove to me your Theory? ---Ian Moss--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragz5 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss evolution, macroevolution, etc. And you really need to understand what scientists mean by the word theory, it's a bit worrying that you misunderstand it so badly that you want someone to 'prove' a theory. Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms vs. Response to Criticisms

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)

Raestzsch makes a good point. However, if anyone wants further discussions on macroevolution, click here to go to my talk page. --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Misleading Statements

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004)."

I'd like to know, what all this "Overwhelmingly consistent proof" Is, if I've read things right, Evolution is still a THEORY If your going to say something like that, you should back it up with actual proof. Darwin actually said himself that Macroevolution has more evidence against it then it does for it, take the Cambrian Explosion, Molecular Biology and Structural Homology, for example. Alec92 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You might start with evidence of evolution. However, I organize the evidence in 4 groups:

And you also need to look up the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is not the same as "I made up an idea." It's more like "a testable model" and as such, evolution (macro and micro) have plenty of evidence that passes this test. In addition, Evolution has come a long way since Darwin; please don't quote 150+ year old data when arguing your point. -76.172.41.63 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Laboratory evidence: new species have been observed emerging in the laboratory over and over (fruit flies, bacteria, etc)

• Field evidence: Tilapia (the "Jesus" fish) has been observed to evolve in the field, mosquitos in the London Tube, plants on opposite sides of the Great Wall of China are different species, bacteria in dumps have evolved an ability to consume nylon, and insects on Hawaii have evolved special mouths to eat bananas

• Fossil evidence: literally hundreds of millions of fossils found worldwide provide immense volumes of evidence that does not refute evolution, and bolsters it over and over and over

• Genetic evidence: The splice in human chromosome number 2 shows human ancestors were the same as the ancestors of other primates. The signature of endogenous retroviruses in Human DNA are the fingerprints of common descent.

It goes on and on and on. You are welcome to discard it if you like, but you are not allowed to impose your ignorance on others by force. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. See evolution as theory and fact.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravity is "still a THEORY" too, albeit one that is less well understood than evolution. As for evidence against macroevolution...please do share some examples of this evidence. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry for "imposing my ignorance on others by force" but as far as i've seen, people are teaching ""Macro""Evolution as ""Fact"" and only a ""Fact"", and your Laboratory Evidence, those are evidence of Microevolution, i'm not rejecting Microevolution, i just don't believe in Macroevolution. Alec92 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you are free to remain ignorant if you choose to do so. No problem. Be as ignorant as you like; no one is forcing you. Do not interfere with others who want to learn. And if you define macroevolution as speciation, all of those examples above are examples of speciation. In fact, you cannot show me one example that speciation by evolution is impossible. Not one. So I have no idea what macroevolution means to you, but to me, it means you have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit with the "evolution is just a theory" card, as it is nothing but the equivocation fallacy. Keep creationist nonsense of Wikipedia. For further information, head somewhere else. SkepticBanner (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not using the "evolution is just a theory" card, i am using the "Macroevolution is just an unconfirmed hypothesis"

...And you are mistaken. Macroevolution is a confirmed fact of nature. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Has Macroevloution been witnessed in labratorys? has the fossil record completly filled in all the gaps? has mutation switched back to adding information to the DNA Strand? Alec92 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Has Macroevolution been witnessed in laboratories? Yes

Are there gaps in the fossil record? Yes and there always will be, but there are fewer as time passes

Has mutation added information? Yes

Any more questions? --Filll (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, your telling me that scientists have witnessed a cow turning into a whale? I'm still talking about one part of the theory of evolution, Macroevolution, not microevolution. Alec92 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not get to define your own strawmen. And Macroevolution is mainly an invention and use of antiscience fruitcakes and fringe elements. It is not a common term or part of the theory of evolution. In other words, you are arguing about something that does not exist as you have defined it.--Filll (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk about macroevolution and microevolution as though they are two separate, unrelated ideas. They're not. Additionally, comparative genomics and paleontology have observed progressive changes through millenia between and in species, at the genetic and species level - yes those are both part of MACROevolution. Please don't bring up points like "because no one has visually witnessed a phenomenon that takes hundreds of generations it doesn't exist" because that is a really weak argument. Plenty of things that are not visually observed have very strong evidence for them. -76.172.41.63 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

and how about you quit with you Anti-Religious crusading, if you want to have a "Perfect world with absolutely no religion" how about YOU head somewhere else, wikipedia is for everybody, not for you. Alec92 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Primarily, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Which means it's for people who know stuff to communicate what they know to people who don't know that stuff. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alec, you said there's evidence against macroevolution. If so, that sounds like stuff that needs to be discussed in the article. I have never heard of anything of the sort. So please do share this evidence. Guettarda (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Evidence..

1. Look at the forearms of the Common Bat, Bird, Porpoise and Human, they all have Humeruses, Radiuses, Ulnas, Metacarpals, Carpals and Phalanges. Do any of you think a Common Ancestor could have led to 4 species have almost nothing in common?

Yes, it is a fact that all of those have common ancestry, and you've even cited some of the skeletal evidence that indicates this (of course, we also have the fossil record, DNA etc). You seem to be denying common descent here, not macroevolution: but you still have no argument. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Mutualism:

Take a look at your Standard termite, termites eat wood, correct? well by themselves they cannot digest cellulose, but in the gut of their stomach.. Trichonympha eat cellulose, could this have come about from random chance? i'll leave that for you to decide.

Learn about the evolution of symbiosis sometime. No mystery here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blind Shrimp and the Goby is a good example as well, the Blind shrimp digs holes to live in, and the goby needs a home, the blind shrimp can't see, but the goby can, so they team up, again.. is this possible in a world that has been given up to have been formed by "chance"?

Learn about the evolution of symbiosis sometime. No mystery here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

and finally, the Oriental Sweetlips and the Blue-Streak Wrasse, what fish in his right mind would swim directly into the mouth of a fish who eats other fish?

Learn about the evolution of symbiosis sometime. No mystery here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alec92 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

None of your "evidence" sounds reasonable or plausible to me. Do you have any published WP:RS for these claims of evidence? Since the other claims are in mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journals, your claims would have to be in similar journals like Nature magazine, Science (journal), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or similar publications. Thanks!--Filll (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I recieved this information after reading a text book by Dr. Jay L. Wile, Exploring Creation with Biology" Alec92 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very nice, but it does not count. You need a better source than that for this. Thanks!--Filll (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he evolved from Wile E. Coyote? Never mind, Eck, Roadrunner will be back for the next episode ;) .. dave souza, talk 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think not. I read the textbook that Alec92 refers to. Although it may not be "mainstream science", as several admins (as well as Robert Stevens, who may or may not be an admin, I don't know) it is an argument that is worthy of note, even if you don't believe it. Therefore, Mr. Souza, I politely believe your joke is inaproppriate here.

Additionally, could Mr. Stevens tell Alec92 (and me, because I'm interested) where to find information on "the evolution of symbiosis", as he refers to it? That would be rather helpful, as the "evolution of symbiosis" is a subject I know little to nothing about.

What? This is wikipedia! Symbiosis has an entry, and information about evolution in it! -76.172.41.63 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, what does Filll mean that macroevolution is not a part of evolution as a whole? If he could explain how that works out, I would be very pleased.

Thanks guys--- Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that macroevolution is a term used mostly by creationists, not scientists, at the present time. There is no speciation barrier and no discernable difference between micro and macroevolution as far as I know, although if you can show me a mainstream source that says otherwise I would be interested.--Filll (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to understand how "Symbiosis" fits into the "Survival of the Fittest" Part of the "Grand Scheme of Evolution", Because it seems like the theory is contradicting itself by saying "Only the toughest animal can survive" and then saying "but a couple of the weaker Animals can survive, if they team up." How does this work? i'd like to know. Alec92 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your urge to gain knowledge is commendable, and may I draw to your attention the introductory resources at Wikipedia, such as evolution and symbiosis. You'll find links there to more detailed resources. Enjoy! .. dave souza, talk 11:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to ask you if you think that the theory has not changed since Darwin proposed it, and if you think that Darwin said that only the toughest animal can survive. If you do, you might want to learn a bit so you are more educated. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the theory has changed, and I never said that Darwin himself actually said that, I was simply making an example, and still, You have not answered Albert Einsteins Ghost question about The Evolution of Symbiosis. Alec92 (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. This is offtopic and not the purpose of this talk page. This page is for the improvement of the article, not for general debates, or for soapboxing, or producing religious documents or blogging etc. If you want to do this, go to TalkOrigins or other websites. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll is correct here. However, I wondered if anyone had a link to another website about the evolution of symbiosis. (Perhaps Robert Stevens, since he brought up the subject earlier.) If not, I'll try to find reasonable data myself. Thanks! --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on symbiosis is fairly well-referenced. Why don't you start there? Mycroft7 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbiased

Regardless of what one thinks about this, Wikipedia should be as unbiased as possible. Regardless of how some things are regarded as truth by some, or as a lie to others, parts of the article should not have the simple objective to ridicule or taunt, the other point of view, ignorance or not. I believe the part on Criticisms of macroevolution is particularly biased in that it focuses on how wrong criticists are instead of really stating what they object. Johan (no username) 11:08, 22 February 2008 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.140.83.8 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 February 2008

So how would you propose to put it right? Please feel free to suggest some alternative wording for the sentence in question. Snalwibma (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say the second paragraph should be under dispute. "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." Published in the early 80's was this:

Darwin realized that the fossil record fails to corroborate his theory, according to which evolution proceeds through the accumulation of endless series of minute changes, "micromutations" according to current terminology. The evidence available at the time rather suggested that evolution proceeds by extensive leaps... (Macroevolution and Punctuated Equilibria, Soren Lovtrup, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Dec., 1981), pp. 498-500.)

Why should that be replaced? It's a statement that is 150+ years old, and not part of modern theory. The current paragraph is much better, and correct. -76.172.41.63 (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there has been new fossil findings to show that macroevolution does evolve by "micromutations", but I think this should be presented if there hasn't. Infonation101 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometime you should visit Genbank and see how many different organisms have sequences deposited there. Then, you should open a molecular biology textbook and find out what a "mutation" actually is. Graft | talk 01:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Comparing sequences between organisms shows that the amount of changes that are not due to accumulation of point mutations shoots through the roof between species, but rarely within species. Insofar, I dount that the "compounded effects" statement holds true. Perhaps it was correct before the discovery of the homeobox, but I doubt that many of today's evo-devo researchers would easily sign it anymore... (Of course, you will have a hard time finding anything but point mutations when you do just alignments, so grabbing longer sequences from GenBank regardless of alignment and comparing them is necessary here.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Under the section "criticisms of macroevolution" the line "considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization" seems rather biased even if it is truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.153.139 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia does not have a policy of being unbiased (i.e., WP:UNBIASED). It has a policy of being WP:NPOV. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statement

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)

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)

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)

recent developments in E. Coli research

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)

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)

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)

Then why not add the recommended links as footnotes supporting macroevolution? --Scheevel (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Most mainstream scientists?

User:Jumacdon seems quite intent on insisting that only "most" mainstream scientists regard macroevolution as a scientific fact. I am curious to know if there is a reference for any mainstream scientists who dispute this claim. Last time I checked, creation science and baraminology were not part of the scientific mainstream. Then again, I haven't had a subscription to Nature in quite some time, so I suppose things might have changed in the past ten years or so. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think one is allowed to hold one non-mainstream view (such as creationism) and still be a mainstream scientist, especially if one's non-mainstream view doesn't overlap with your research specialty (behavior of colonial nestig birds, or whatever). Abyssal (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the word FACT, believing something to be fact does not make it fact. You are defining mainstream scientist by whether or not they believe evolution to be fact, this is a bit too convenient and bias for scientific endeavor. I do not believe plate tectonics to be a fact, but I think it more than likely is...however, it remains a theory. Can't someone not believe something to be a fact, but still believe it to be likely? Or do we need to deal with absolutes here?

Check out the "levels of support for evolution" and you will see that the MAJORITY of scientists believe that evolution occurred and occurs. Here is a direct quote that they use to back up this claim ""As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original)." You will see that qualifiers are NOT always weasel words, and that in FACT they are necessary in the case, it is impossible to use an absolute in the case, you cannot prove that all "mainstream" (what is the definition of this word?) scientists do. It is a theory (this does not mean it is not fact, I ver much believe evolution occurred) it DOES mean, that it is not FACT! (by very definition). Some of us more humble and thoughtful scientists are willing to accept you don't know everything and are willing to leave some things as "more than likelys" than out and out facts. You cannot prove that ALL scientists do, it is impossible. Why can't you just be happy with most? Why? Explain this. I am not arguing creationism, not remotely, I am holding science to the same standard that it was meant to be held to. "NOT a collection of facts" This is what I am REQUIRED to teach my students, because science is not a collection of facts, and absolutes are hard to prove, and the burden of proof is on the people making the absolute claim, not those refuting it. I think I have been more than clear, more than fair, and the insistent desire to erase a VERY important and real qualifier is embarrassing to the scientific community. Jumacdon (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Jumacdon makes some excellent points. It is unfortunate that his/her contributions are being smothered as weasely when the whole sentence is nothing but a fluffy generalization devoid of any meaningful content. It's clear that Jumacdon is simply trying to hold this article to a higher standard of quality, but because the addition of the word "most" may be construed as giving credence to the creationist viewpoint, it is instantly stifled. It is glaringly clear that this wasn't Jumacdon's intent. The point is valid, almost all mainstream biologists support macroevolution, but the way this information is conveyed is complete overkill. Furthermore, it is indisputable that the word "factual" does not belong here. Any scientist worth his or her salt would recognize that this is a true weasel word! AlphaEta 22:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The fact is that only an extreme fringe minority of people who can claim to be scientists dispute the occurrence of "macroevolution", and under WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ policy as well as WP:FRINGE guidance we should not use the weasel term "most" with the inference that this minority group counts as "mainstream scientists" in the context. The sources I've got to hand don't put it exactly that way, so I've rephrased the paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave's revision is a huge improvement over the previous version. Whether or not the scientists who have failed to accepted macroevolution (either out of ignorance or dogmatic belief) truly represent the "fringe minority of people who claim to be scientists" is irrelevant; truth does not dictate the "threshold for inclusion," verifiability does. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District reference supports the sentence in its current form. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respect my edits

Just because you are a veteran member does not give you the right to arbitrarily delete my edits. I have complied with the core policies and my edits are justified. They are grammatical corrections not point of view disputes. If you have concerns I would appreciate at the very least the courtesy of a message before you make a revision. I would advise you as well that "neutral and objective" had been defined by Wikipedia to facilitate end results that "may mean including conflicting viewpoints". Designer0808 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes were the following:

(1) you changed "[mainstream science] holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past" to "[mainstream science] purports that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past" (emphasis added). This is not a grammatical correction but changes the meaning completely, and insinuates that mainstream science is wrong.

(2) you inserted the word "alleged" into the sentence "The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct" (emphasis added). This is not a grammatical correction.

(3) You inserted the word "smaller" in the sentence "Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the smaller scientific community" (emphasis added). Yes, the scientific community is smaller than the general public. So what? In scientific questions it's the findings scientific community that we should report, not those of the general public.

Therefore the revert was justified. --RE (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

May I also add that the polls being cited were being used to advance a particular position that overstates the number of scientists that are creationists or theistic evolutionists. The edit dishonestly misrepresented the figure as a world-wide sampling of all scientists, when in fact the polling numbers are just from a US sample, which already has among the highest numbers. (If I presented a poll of scientists from, say, Finland, I think it would tell a quite different story.) Moreover, the source itself says that the meaning of the term "scientist" is unclear, but the edit conveniently fails to mention this ambiguity. This is not the first time that citing polling data in scientific articles on evolution has been suggested, and the consensus every time, and in a large number of articles, has been to keep this out of the article. The interests of maintaining a neutral point of view are better served by having a single article, Level of support for evolution, where all of the polls can be presented along with all of the necessary caveats. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I read, you were correct to revert D08. Edits of that type may fly on the Discovery Institute's web-pages, or on Conservapedia, but here, where we are more concerned with representing the verfiable state of affairs they should be nuked on sight. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It was wrong of you to revert. The word purports is most accurate since both footnotes (6 and 7) only provide speculations about macroevolution and do not contain any emperical data. If you want to retain the word holds then your footnotes should be actual proofs.--Scheevel (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What, pray, is this emperical data? Eevolutionary change at or above the level of species happens, get used to it. . dave souza, talk 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, you shouldn't have any trouble providing real footnotes that actually show it.--65.122.133.2 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And anyway, there are some documented cases of observed speciation discussed in the article Speciation. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The footnotes are contrived and the sources are weak (see Plumbago's appropriate observations below). If the evidence of macroevolution is so convincing then cite a controlled study demonstrating increased biological complexity...otherwise rollback to Designer0808's legitimate edits. Thank you.

Please give a definition of the scientific term "complexity" and how it is measured. Until then, see the sources at Nylon-eating bacteria. Thank you. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific literature

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)

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)

Creationism or creation myth?

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)

I agree with you on that one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Adequacy of citations

Per WP:BRD I recently added the {{fact}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not entirely sure that you have a complete understanding of WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I added the {{fact}} template, requesting verification, and was reverted. So, if there are any sources for this claim, please add them. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add a {{fact}} 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)

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 {{fact}} 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)

OK, forget me. Source found. That wasn't so hard, now was it? --Cerebellum (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Ya'll are right, and I apologize for the waste of time. I should have remembered WP:Righting great wrongs and at the very least have looked for a source before I leapt. Again, sorry, and I hope there will be no hard feelings. May your editing be always happy and productive! --Cerebellum (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sentence added and immediately deleted

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)

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)

What notoriously non-neutral source are you refering to? 4.246.200.102 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A bit of self-contradiction

"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)

Need supporting evidence:

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)

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)

Sorry, it is a"usenet" group, not a blog. Do not push your propaganda onto wikipedia again, or you will be removed as a user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.51.180 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have some evidence to put there to support your hypothesis, please post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.51.180 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

IP has a point though, we could use better sources. Abyssal (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

NPOV Dispute

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)

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)

I'm still not fully sure what they were editing/reverting over but basically there had been multiple reverts mainly which seemed to be over terminology and whether it was NPOV or not, it seems to have stopped but if it starts up again i will put the tag back on as there is clearly a dispute over the Neutrality. Lodi01 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Fringe spin

This edit introduced an odd spin into the criticisms section:

However a new paradigm is emerging distinguishing micro and macroevolution in regard to the mecanisms involved particularly the homeobox "It is demonstrated that there is a difference between micro-evolution (punctual mutation in structural genes inside a sort) and macro-evolution (speciation caused by mutation in regulatory genes)" ref>Nathalie Gontier De oorsprong en evolutie van leven p322/ref> and it is now possible to say that "We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology [ ... ] through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages." ref>(Adoutte et. Al, 2000: 4455, m.c.)cf also works from Gehring and Schwartz /ref>

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)

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)

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)

Hmm, PMID 19651308 (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." PMID 17553908 (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)