Talk:Macroevolution

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 (UTC)

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))

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)

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 "criticism". It seems that since "talk origins" (which seems to be bias) is allowed as "verifiable", shouldn't this creationwiki page (just the page) be for simply responding 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, only a mass-opinion. Shouldn't another view be allowed to expresses itself in the objections section at least. Seems a little unfair for the community as a whole. Thanks, Adelphospro (Jan 24, 08 9:24 EST)

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)

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)