Talk:Macroevolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale
To-do list for Macroevolution: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Priority 3  
Archive
Archives

1



Contents

[edit] This I think is unnecesarry:

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

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

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

I understand your concern. However, it seems that the term is probably used more by creationists than by actual scientists. Even though it is a genuine scientific term (which doesn't mean what they want it to mean), it seems to be a fairly obscure and little-used one. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Robert Stevens. For the sake of clarity, the (mis)use of the term by those who want to have their cake and eat it by driving a wedge between "micro" and "macro" evolution needs to be covered. Creationist pseudoscience is probably the context in which most people will come across the word "macroevolution", and this article does need to cover that ground clearly. Snalwibma (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you are confused, Mr. X. Evidence for evolution, as near as I can tell as an outsider (not a biologist, but another kind of scientist), falls in 4 categories:
  • laboratory evidence (we have seen speciation in laboratory experiments, which creationists used to call macroevolution, but now that it was seen, they might not, depending on the creationist)
  • field evidence (we have seen speciation in field observations, say of plants on either side of the Great Wall of China, or in Tilipia, or in nylon eating bacteria; again, creationists might or might not call these speciation events macroevolution depending on the creationist)
  • fossil evidence (speciation evidence in fossil record, with 100s of millions of fossils)
  • DNA and genetic evidence (for example, a telomere in the middle of a human chromosome-number 2 I think)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Criticisms vs. Response to Criticisms

I believe that the "Criticisms of Macroevolution" section is improperly titled since it does not cite any direct criticisms. Instead, it appears to be a response to the criticisms. As such, perhaps the title of that section should be changed to "Response to Criticisms." It should probably be preceded by a newly-written criticisms section that neutrally notes specific criticisms. Thoughts?

Please note: The issue here is whether the title of a section matches its content. It is NOT a question of scientific evidence or lack thereof. Raetzsch (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The section discusses criticisms. We shouldn't have a "criticism" section simply to state criticisms of the topics - things like that should be worked into the article. On a topic like this though, we need to discuss the criticisms, which is what the section does. Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Barely, it would seem to me. The way the whole thing is worded, it almost displays POV, in my opinion. But I don't trust myself to make the edit without reversing the point of view myself. Max (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Statements

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

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

You might start with evidence of evolution. However, I organize the evidence in 4 groups:
  • Laboratory evidence: new species have been observed emerging in the laboratory over and over (fruit flies, bacteria, etc)
  • Field evidence: Tilapia (the "Jesus" fish) has been observed to evolve in the field, mosquitos in the London Tube, plants on opposite sides of the Great Wall of China are different species, bacteria in dumps have evolved an ability to consume nylon, and insects on Hawaii have evolved special mouths to eat bananas
  • Fossil evidence: literally hundreds of millions of fossils found worldwide provide immense volumes of evidence that does not refute evolution, and bolsters it over and over and over
  • Genetic evidence: The splice in human chromosome number 2 shows human ancestors were the same as the ancestors of other primates. The signature of endogenous retroviruses in Human DNA are the fingerprints of common descent.

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

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

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

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

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

I am not using the "evolution is just a theory" card, i am using the "Macroevolution is just an unconfirmed hypothesis"
...And you are mistaken. Macroevolution is a confirmed fact of nature. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Has Macroevloution been witnessed in labratorys? has the fossil record completly filled in all the gaps? has mutation switched back to adding information to the DNA Strand? Alec92 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Has Macroevolution been witnessed in laboratories? Yes
Are there gaps in the fossil record? Yes and there always will be, but there are fewer as time passes
Has mutation added information? Yes
Any more questions? --Filll (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, Evidence..

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

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

2. Mutualism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

That is very nice, but it does not count. You need a better source than that for this. Thanks!--Filll (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he evolved from Wile E. Coyote? Never mind, Eck, Roadrunner will be back for the next episode ;) .. dave souza, talk 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think not. I read the textbook that Alec92 refers to. Although it may not be "mainstream science", as several admins (as well as Robert Stevens, who may or may not be an admin, I don't know) it is an argument that is worthy of note, even if you don't believe it. Therefore, Mr. Souza, I politely believe your joke is inaproppriate here.
Additionally, could Mr. Stevens tell Alec92 (and me, because I'm interested) where to find information on "the evolution of symbiosis", as he refers to it? That would be rather helpful, as the "evolution of symbiosis" is a subject I know little to nothing about.
Lastly, what does Filll mean that macroevolution is not a part of evolution as a whole? If he could explain how that works out, I would be very pleased.
Thanks guys--- Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I'd like to understand how "Symbiosis" fits into the "Survival of the Fittest" Part of the "Grand Scheme of Evolution", Because it seems like the theory is contradicting itself by saying "Only the toughest animal can survive" and then saying "but a couple of the weaker Animals can survive, if they team up." How does this work? i'd like to know. Alec92 (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your urge to gain knowledge is commendable, and may I draw to your attention the introductory resources at Wikipedia, such as evolution and symbiosis. You'll find links there to more detailed resources. Enjoy! .. dave souza, talk 11:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Filll is correct here. However, I wondered if anyone had a link to another website about the evolution of symbiosis. (Perhaps Robert Stevens, since he brought up the subject earlier.) If not, I'll try to find reasonable data myself. Thanks! --Albert Einstien's ghost (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on symbiosis is fairly well-referenced. Why don't you start there? Mycroft7 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unbiased

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

So how would you propose to put it right? Please feel free to suggest some alternative wording for the sentence in question. Snalwibma (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to say the second paragraph should be under dispute. "Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale." Published in the early 80's was this:

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

I don't know if there has been new fossil findings to show that macroevolution does evolve by "micromutations", but I think this should be presented if there hasn't. Infonation101 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometime you should visit Genbank and see how many different organisms have sequences deposited there. Then, you should open a molecular biology textbook and find out what a "mutation" actually is. Graft | talk 01:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Removed unsourced statement

I removed the sentence

This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics.

from the introduction. This is a statement of the type "some people say..." and has no place here. If it is indeed true it should be easy to provide sources and names of biologists who dispute this. --RE (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be referring to Gould and Eldridge, but both Dawkins (1986) and Dennett (1995) thinks that Punctuated Equilibrium lies within the post-synthetic theory of evolution 81.228.212.111 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)