Talk:Vestigial structures
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GodWarrior (talk | contribs) at 01:06, May 24, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Article deletion by user:Conservative in 3....2...1.... --Gulik2 14:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
- Get a lot of citations, and quick. He can't delete an article with 15 citations. --Hojimachongtalk 14:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
- Lol:) This should be under developmental Biology and Evolution Categories. Go to pubmed and you can find plenty of articles that deal with this topic, hard evidence.--TimS 14:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I just made the article sound a little more encyclopedic and added a reference. GodWarrior 16:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Overall the changes are good, but the removal of the point on natural selection is puzzling. Learn together 18:14, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I just felt it wasn't very encyclopedic the way it was worded especially the part in the form of the question. Also, it seems consistant with the Natural Selection that vestigial structures could be "in the process" of being phased out. GodWarrior 18:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Part of the 'two-edged sword' of natural selection is that it should weed out inefficiencies as an outgoing occurrence and if it's not doing so, then they aren't inefficiencies. Giving it an open ended "in the process" can be fine if we're talking about short time periods on an evolutionary scale, but when we're talking about tens of millions of years then there is a benefit or a neutrality to the structure that by definition says it is not useless. Learn together 19:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- If the structure is neutral from the point of reproductive and general fitness, then there is no selective pressure for it to be eliminated and it could potentially persist until random mutations eliminate or change it. GodWarrior 21:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)