9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + Line 82:
Line 87: + + + + + + + + Line 90:
Line 103: + + Line 96:
Line 111: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→First Arg
:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
When I read this it just seems like this is being treated poorly because of a lack of evidence. This is simply explained because man's curiosity into evolution has only been around for 200 years and out scientific intellect for only a few thousands and no one has observed this incredibly slow process (it takes millions of years). Plus crazy examples like "little bacterium became starfish that became bears" just don't fit into the theory; that's not the point, the point is that similar yet reproductively isolated species were related but due to a speciation event (geographical, natural selection) were no longer able to reproduce with one another and their genes just stopped being compatible with each other due to mutations (over time). --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 15:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
: Your ''faith'' in evolution is touching, but did you ever stop to think that the "lack of evidence" might be because ''it didn't happen''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:14, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Yor 'faith' in God is touching, but did you ever stop to think that 'lack of evidence' (outside the rantings of desert warlords and mass murderers over two thousand years ago) means he 'doesn't excist'
==Changes==
==Changes==
::::::But if a mutation is neutral, then surely it is below the species level, almost if not actually by definition? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::But if a mutation is neutral, then surely it is below the species level, almost if not actually by definition? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Probably, although there are probably ways to achieve speciation through purely neutral shifts; think changes in sexual selection which lead to a segregation of the population while leaving the net fitness unchanged. But the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.' They tend to contribute to both. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Tsumetai, you are correct. Another factor is that neutral mutations do get passed on as the organism evolves, and since mutations are not considered positive or negative until the environmental stresses test them or they cause the organism to have some fatal flaw (tay sachs for example) they can lead to macro and micro changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
''the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.''': surely the point is that 'micro' and 'macro' are distinctions made by Creationists, so when Philip Rayment asks ''If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution?'', it is up to him or others of his belief system to answer. Which should be easy for him, because he contends that there are more species (or kinds) extant today than there were on Noah's Ark, so he must accept that speciation (and hence, presumably 'macroevolution') occurs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:"micro" and "macro" distinctions are not made solely by creationists, and many if not most creationary scientists these day avoid use of the terms, as they are ill-defined and miss the main point anyway. I do accept that speciation occurs, but whether or not that constitutes macroevolution is something that I don't really care about. What it does ''not'' constitute is an increase in genetic [[information]], which is what evolution requires. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==
== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==
::::Not for him. He got away with it on the Theory of Evolution page. Even after the panel ruled, he got away with making an important substantive change (removing the link to The Origin of Species itself) without even a slap on the wrist; the only comment made on that ''at all'' by anyone with power, was the Panel mischaracterizing it is him adding a book to the recommended reading list. Nothing is improper for Conservative. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for him. He got away with it on the Theory of Evolution page. Even after the panel ruled, he got away with making an important substantive change (removing the link to The Origin of Species itself) without even a slap on the wrist; the only comment made on that ''at all'' by anyone with power, was the Panel mischaracterizing it is him adding a book to the recommended reading list. Nothing is improper for Conservative. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
CPWebmaster, this has been submitted to the Panel. It should either be blanked or kept in the condition it was prior to its submission. That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroevolution&oldid=106418 this version].-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
CPWebmaster, this has been submitted to the Panel. It should either be blanked or kept in the condition it was prior to its submission. That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroevolution&oldid=106418 this version].-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sysops, this matter deserves attention. The page should be unlocked asap, and unreferred to the Panel, or it should be reverted to its state prior to submission.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
==References section needed==
==References section needed==
<nowiki>==References==</nowiki><br />
<nowiki>==References==</nowiki><br />
<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
:There were references before the revert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Funny, here it is three weeks later and I just added a section to say just this (which I deleted when I saw this section). '''WAKE UP''' somebody, please. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's currently no <nowiki><ref>-type</nowiki> references in the article to show in a <nowiki><references /> section</nowiki>. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It has been locked for weeks. Conservative's revert did not need them but the reverts before it had them. I think that Human wants some references to Conservative's claims.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 06:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
==Will this page ever be unlocked?==
It has been 2.5 weeks since this page was locked. Will it ever be unlocked so that further editing can be done? Right now its current state does not provide enough information to make it usable by students.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
== ProX' edits ==
I reverted ProX' edits, and he reverted them back, so before reverting them again, I'm going to explain in greater detail than my previous edit comment why.
* "'''Macroevolution''' is a term used by [[Creationists]]": True, but (a) it's also used by evolutionists (who coined the term) and (b) is also deliberately ''not used'' by leading creationists. So this statement is misleading.
* "However, scientists do not make this distinction...": As just mentioned, evolutionists ''do'' (or at least ''have'') used these terms. Also, this phrase falsely implies that scientists and creationists are two mutually-exclusive groups.
* "...the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. [[common descent]]) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.": That is opinion masquerading as fact.
* "Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the on as the "''fact'' of evolution".": Apart from the grammatical error, they do refer to it as "fact", but this is because of their ideology, not overwhelming evidence.
* "Creationists accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution")...": Actually, leading creationists ''reject'' "evolutionary" change. That is, change that is ''observed'' is not "evolutionary", in the sense that such changes can lead to the evolutionary "family tree".
* "...but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").": On the contrary, leading creationists accept the existence of speciation.
The new "Methods of Macroevolution" may not be similarly faulty, but the title presumes the existence of what the rest of the article now argues is a fallacy! I think that this section would be better off in a different article (although at the moment I'm not sure which one).
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)