Talk:Macroevolution/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments from 2004 2 Testable 3 Criticism of Criticism of Criticism... 4 Rejecting macroevolution 5 Quick policy tip 6 Distinction Between Microevolution and Macroevolution 7 the first line and definitions 8 on the context flag 9 Macroevolution and transitional forms 10 Dichotomy 11 Intro still needs rewriting 12 The 'Cambrian Explosion' exploded. 13 History of Macroevolution 14 Merging 15 Creationism 16 Criticisms of macroevolution 17 modern synthesis -- 2x 18 Macroevolution Impossible? 19 NPOV template 20 citing a definition 21 Dissput about neutrality and factual accuracy 21.1 Arbitrary break 22 Views?? 23 Removed material 24 google search on macroevoluton

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)