Talk:Macroevolution

I mean, is nobody going to talk about how this article was essentially deleted and rewritten in early May 2020, and then not touched again?

So like, uh, is nobody going to say anything about how the user Toedi3614 completely rewrote essentially the whole article on 3-6 May 2020? The page went from [1] to [2] where there has been no significant change since then. Basically the entire article changed from the concept of macroevolution being evolutionary change beyond the species level, to a group selection idea. As far as I know, group selection is still a pretty contentious idea, so I'm not sure how much of a good representation of the current state of the art this new page is. It appears that the article is written basically along the lines of just one article written by Michael Hautmann. I mean really, one guy? Really? We're going to re-write the entire article based off of one author? C'mon now. Can someone else please comment on this? BirdValiant (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but even group selection has little to do with macro-evolution. See my comment below about rewriting this page (again). Peteruetz (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

This page needs a complete rewrite. It has barely anything to do with macro-evolution. I have already deleted 2 sections, namely those on "Evolutionary faunas" and on "speciation", both of which literally said nothing about macro-evolution. What's most urgently needed are sections on explanations and good examples. Thoughts? Peteruetz (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have started to rewrite this now. I will likely delete the sections on Mass extinctions, Stanley's rule, and Species selection, which have next to nothing to do with macroevolution. This will literally delete most of the original page, except for the history section (which probably should be revised too). Just to mention it :) Peteruetz (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You introduced creationist bullshit. That does not belong here, it has its own page. We use science in pages about pseudoscience but not the other way around, see WP:ONEWAY. I reverted back to before your first edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

And not trying to edit-war your WP:PROFRINGE edits back in. Bad idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Macroevolution

(Moved from my Talk page, where it does not belong) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please justify your radical cuts before you do them. I am happy to discuss but just deleting stuff without even thinking or reading is pretty offensive. This section was ABOUT criticism of macroevolution, do you understand that?? Peteruetz (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place because that is not a matter between you and me. I have informed WP:FTN about your attempts to insert anti-science propaganda into an article about science: ignorance is not "criticism". --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand my edits. I am biology professor and therefore exactly the opposite of a pseudoscientist. I am actually DEBUNKING pseudoscience, which is exactly the reason why the section heading is CRITICISM. Not sure you get that. Peteruetz (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter what you are. Pseudoscience has no place in that article. We do not mention Immanuel Velikovsky in our article about Venus either.

And you are still in the wrong place. I am moving this to the article Talk page because you seem unable to listen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific reasoning against science is not "criticism". --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Peteruetz: I only saw a section called "Criticism", containing loads of pseudoscientific crap. That is an insertion typical for profringe editors, so I erroneously reverted all of it. I did not see that you wrote that those things were refuted; it was a reflex edit based on bad experience.

But still: Why are you ignoring WP:ONEWAY? We do not add pseudoscientific ideas in articles about science, with or without refuting them. Also, since when is ignorance "criticism"? If you had chosen a better section title, this would not have happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As you all know the only people thesedays opposing macroevolution are indeed pseudoscientists (creationists or ancient astronaut) so I agree that its undue weight on a mainstream article like this, we don't need to waste time refuting it, it is a non-issue. Peteruetz has done a lot of good work on the article but the "criticism" section is off-mission. We don't need it and it should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW there were some early criticisms of macroevolution (that came from scientists, not creationists) but such criticisms were not in the mainstream camp, Gerald A. Kerkut, Søren Løvtrup and Pierre-Paul Grassé come to mind but these are outdated criticisms published over 50 years ago. I doubt we need to mention historical criticisms unless a history section is added to the article and expanded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY states: Fringe views... may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.

There are many reliable sources prominently connecting and comparing evolution to the pseudoscience of creationism. Evolution is not as commonly compared to Lamarckism or Macromutation in the same way, and thus do not need to be in the criticism section.

Therefore the criticism section, provided it debunks, (which it currently does) can, and should remain. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to add the sentences following that one: However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article and the next. There is no way that te misunderstandings of fundie loons are WP:DUE in a science article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Viewpoints are WP:DUE if they are prevalent in reliable sources, not if they are coherent or scientific. The views are mentioned in reliable sources and thus they should be mentioned in this article. To prevent the article from giving them undue weight it should have only a small section of the article and be refuted. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but it seems I have to quote the whole paragraph now:

Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

The sentence starting with "However" makes it clear that "independent reliable sources connect the topics" is not enough. But you keep pointing at the "independent reliable sources connect the topics" part and ignoring the "However" part, even after I pointed out that there is a "However" part.

I have debated creationists for several years, and your behavior is very familiar. It does not work. Duane Gish was notorious for listening to refutations to his claims and then immediately repeating them as if the refutation had never happened. Please don't do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the 'however' part of the paragraph, and I am aware that the independent reliable sources that connect the topics are not, by themselves, sufficient. I believe that you may have made a mistake, you are quoting WP:ONEWAY not WP:DUE which is what I mentioned. WP:ONEWAY, which you quoted, states that mentions of fringe views are acceptable if:

• They have reliable sources connecting them
• They don't give fringe views undue weight

I argue that inclusion (with refutation obviously) is acceptable in this article, as WP:DUE states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

I am an atheist, metaphysical naturalist, most certainly NOT a creationist, and believe religious fundamentalism and theocracy are key causes of many of the world's problems - particularly those relating to women's rights and access to contraception. I have also debated creationists and other science deniers for several years both online and in real life. Thus I find being compared to Gish to be inaccurate and very insulting. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not make a mistake. We were talking about ONEWAY, so I quoted ONEWAY. (You also mentioned DUE, but I had no reason to quote that.)

In the contribution from 10:29, 28 January 2023, you were quote mining by ignoring the second and third parts of ONEWAY. Now, you are still ignoring the second part, the one about "may be" and "must" (being "aware" is not enough), and sidestepping the third part, about "due weight", by not explaining creationism's prevalence in reliable sources. From the sentence There are many reliable sources prominently connecting and comparing evolution to the pseudoscience of creationism it does not follow that creationism is "prevalent" in reliable sources on macroevolution. Only a very small part of biologists' writings is about defending science from creationists. Your reasoning and thus they should be mentioned in this article is a non sequitur, especially in light of the "may be" and "must" sentence.

I find being compared to Gish to be inaccurate Creationists only use bad reasoning, such as quote mining and non sequitur, because it is all they have - there are no good justifications for their beliefs. Their opponents can use good or bad reasoning but they should only use good reasoning to make the difference clear. If you don't do that, do not blame me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong. Multiple Times. (you won't hear that in creationist reasoning)

I made a mistake in my 10:29, 28 January 2023 contribution. I didn't read ONEWAY in full before posting. It was thougtless and poor form. For that I apologise.

I read your response - "There is no way that te misunderstandings of fundie loons are WP:DUE in a science article." I read DUE and, believing they were prevalent in reliable sources thought you might be misunderstanding wikipedia policy.

Your later responses made me realise I hadn't actually presented evidence to back up my point and just assumed it was there. Thus I searched 'macroevolution' into google. Nothing mentioned creationism or any other pseudoscience at all. While it is mentioned in reliable sources it is by no means pervalent.

I suspect this happened because I'd never actually seen the term (until now) used outside debates with creationists despite spending quite a bit of time learning about evolutionary biology. I thus agree you and believe the criticism section should be removed. Thanks for convincing me to change my mind. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I apologize if I was too harsh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I still maintain that the criticism section should stay for exactly that reason: macroevolution is often mentioned in creationist circles and that's why there needs to be a rebuttal. The criticism section is not there to criticize macroevolution but to rebut that very criticism. Scientifically there is no criticism. BUT there is criticism from fundamentalist circles and that's why a fundamentalist ist likely to read nothing but this section where s/he learns that criticism is actually unfounded. Not sure if that makes sense to all, but it makes perfect sense to me as an evolutionary biologist :). Peteruetz (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am having a hard time following. You want to write a criticism section to explain that criticism is unfounded? I think you may be in the wrong place, if that is the case. We are here to document what reliable sources say about a subject. If reliable sources say that "criticism is unfounded", then our content should reflect that criticism is unfounded. To have a section that is titled simply "criticism" is ceding a point to unreliable claims that we need not cede. Maybe this is a good rhetorical technique for a class or a pedagogical exercise, but in an encyclopedia we need to stick primarily to facts and not entertain things that aren't true excepting that there are reliable sources which say that the things that aren't true are relevant and important to the subject at hand. Getting this balance right is important because we run the risk of WP:FALSEBALANCE otherwise. jps (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. In addition, it’s not just existing in reliable sources that counts, but rather its prevalence in reliable sources. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Criticism of macroevolution is unfounded but a lot of people see this differently, which is why you have to demonstrate it's unfounded. That's why a lot of Wikipedia pages do have sections called "criticism". In this case we are simply addressing the critiques that have been brought forward.

The section currently deals specifically with aspects that have been criticized. Fundamentalists usually do not criticize molecular evolution because most of them do not know anything about it. But they do criticize, for instance, the fact that there are missing links in the fossil record, so this criticism needs to be addressed. The same is true for irreducible complexity, which is otherwise NOT discussed on that page (because the origin of bacterial flagella is not that well understood). However, a strong case can be made that it is not irreducibly complex.

I do agree that the latter two examples are not directly concerned with macroevolution (as specified here), so if the community feels strongly about it, we could remove them. I would still favor a short general section called criticism for the aforementioned reason. Peteruetz (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your desire to highlight the criticisms that fundamentalists make, but I think the problem is one of lack of sources. I note that the current section uses rhetoric such as the passive voice and vague attribution "some people say...", "critics contend..." etc. which is really not good practice here. We need well-documented claims that people are identifying as relevant to the topic. We can't just go by the say-so of those of us who have been in the trenches fighting the good fight against misinformation. The internet has an index of creationist claims which does what you are requesting in a way that Wikipedia could not possibly hope to replicate. I think what we need to do is find sources which identify the ideas outlined as the most important for the topic and can speak to the larger context of how these points are made, whether they are made in bad faith, and so forth. Work by Ronald Numbers may work to that effect, for example. But as things stand right now, I'm not seeing the necessary sourcing. jps (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please be specific on which parts lack sources? Peteruetz (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

... or just include {citation needed} where needed. Peteruetz (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. It's quite the mess. A lot of what is written is either hasty generalization, argumentative per se, or unsourced. Just about the only things that were good were the references to the specific evidence that shows the arguments are nonsensical. Essentially, we need better sources. Not Behe but rather those who have identified Behe as being (1) an important voice of the anti-evolutionists and (2) worthy of notice for his prominent critiques that have been debunked. jps (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Behe is one of the most-cited sources for creationism, and he is even a biologist , so I would argue he IS a major source for anti-evolution criticism. Peteruetz (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that he is the most-cited? If so, use that source instead. Don't user the WP:PRIMARY source directly since it provides zero context. jps (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That said, as a biologist, I don't usually read creationist bullshit, hence I don't know many sources. Peteruetz (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to read some meta-literature. Have you perused the NCSE library, for example? jps (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I know some of their material and I have read a couple of papers by Nick Matzke (not sure if he is still with NCSE though). I find NCSE's media center difficult to navigate though. Peteruetz (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps starting with Ronald Numbers's books might be preferable, then? jps (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You asked me to indicate the problems and then proceeded to remove the tags even though the problems persist. Please find attribution and explanations for the statements that are tagged. jps (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Your requests are ridiculously excessive, I have to say: when I say "The most cited example[citation needed] is the bacterial flagellum ..." there is a citation AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE. Just finish reading the sentence before you ask for citations. That's why I have removed all those requests that you put every in there every 3 words. Please be reasonable. Peteruetz (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems the height of arrogance to first ask for me to put tags in and then balk when I put them in. Anyway, you claim that at the end of the sentence there is a citation that supports the claim that the bacterial flagellum is the "most cited example". The cite goes to Behe's book. The book does not claim that the bacterial flagellum is the most cited example. It merely gives the example. We need a different citation if we are to claim it is the most cited. Do you have a citation that says as much? If not, we cannot say that. The same goes for the other tags I placed. I was not being arbitrary here. If you prefer, I could use "failed verification" as the tag, but I think the point is that for every statement we make, we need a reliable source (and Behe is not a reliable source for documenting what "common" objections are anyway). If you don't have a reliable source that indicates what the text is saying, then we remove the text. Is that what you would prefer? jps (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that Famularo is indeed an unreliable source, but in the field of creationism everything is unreliable. The Famularo book used to be on Amazon and thus easily findable but it seems to have disappeared there now. It's one of the truly egregious examples of creationism, but that's how it is. I can find another, but probably equally unreliable source. As you know, all of them are more or less pseudoscientific, which is why Behe is one of the better sources -- at least he tries to argue from a scientific standpoint. Peteruetz (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

n the field of creationism everything is unreliable. Have you read any of the literature I recommended above about creationism? There are plenty of social scientists and scholars of science education who have written extremely reliable sources about what creationists say and do. Those are the sources which you have not yet used. Behe is perhaps a worse example of a source because it is so misleading for readers. You need to do better with this and stop using the WP:PRIMARY sources. You aren't writing original copy here. You are writing a tertiary reference about what has been reliably documented regarding creationism. jps (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some sources that can be used which may help solve some of the dilemma:

• This article by Kevin Padian
• David Eller's piece in Skeptic Magazine
• classic text of essays on creationism from 1984
• This source on the History and Philosophy of Science use/coinage of the "macroevolution" term and the way it was co-opted by creationists and ignored by certain science educators
• This work which addresses the question of student acceptance of various evolutionary concepts including a dive into "macroevolution"
• This article which discusses the creationist definition of "macroevolution"

I am happy to continue this exercise, but suffice to say that I think this is the direction we need to go in.

jps (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If I say "Large transitions in evolution are said[who?] to be impossible because many structures in biology are "irreducibly complex".[41] it's pretty obvious to me that ref [41] said it. What's unclear about that? Peteruetz (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

By writing in the passive tense, you are implying that there is some sort of general agreement. But let's rewrite and see if this works, "Michael Behe says that large transitions in evolution are impossible because many structures in biology are "irreducibly complex"." DOES HE SAY THAT ACTUALLY? I think you will find that he does not. In fact, he talks out of both sides of his mouth and was caught doing so during the Kitzmiller trial. This sort of paraphrased and generalized statement is also not worthy of inclusion in a page about as broad a subject as we are discussing here. What we need is a statement about the importance of this particular creationist canard. In other words, we need a source that is better than [41], for starters. Maybe there is a source out there which indicates that "most creationists" or "famous arguments" are made in this regard, but your source is not it and, worse, the structure of the sentence itself obfuscates the subject that is relevant to this conversation. WHO? jps (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Same here: when I say "Some common objections[citation needed] and rebuttals are as follows:" the citations FOLLOW. Peteruetz (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the citations indicate that the objections are actually common. At least, I don't see any source that indicates that. Can you show me where in those sources it says that those are the common objections? jps (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I am giving up. Since you are obviously an expert on macroevolution and creationism, and please edit along. Just add all the (unnecessary) details you are missing. Thanks for driving out actual experts from working on Wikipedia. Peteruetz (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I think your contributions elsewhere in the article are fantastic, but I don't understand why you are balking at the criticism that you aren't using very good sources for the content about creationism? Others have argued that creationism perhaps does not belong on this page per WP:ONEWAY. This is a defensible position, but I think there may be a case for inclusion and was hoping to encourage a development of that sort. What it can't be is an exercise in our own original research. Wikipedia simply is not set up to do that. jps (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not to keep it, I don't think a good enough case can be made to keep the section because, although there are reliable sources responding to objections, they aren't prevalent enough. I argue they aren't prevalent because these are the results I get from searching 'macroevolution', none of which respond to creationism.

• https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Human_Biology/Human_Biology_(Wakim_and_Grewal)/09%3A_Biological_Evolution/9.5%3A_Macroevolution
• https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/macroevolution/ Digital atlas
• https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0904106106 Scientific Research
• https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ article from nature.com
• https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/macroevolution/what-is-macroevolution/ From evolution 101 page of University of California, Berkely
• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/ Stanford University page on philosophy of macroevolution

I believe this makes a fairly strong case that responses to creationism in reliable sources aren't prevalent enough to keep a section responding to it. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair. You might check the sources I listed above for a possible counter to this, but I think your source list is a bit more profound. jps (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah thanks it took a while. I Checked the sources. Reliable sources like the ones you mentioned exist but they aren’t in places providing general information on macroevolution. The social and cultural responses to evolution are sometimes mentioned in general information on evolution which is why it is mentioned on the page. Keeping the section would be like having a whole section on molecular evolution on the evolution page. If no one has any objections I might delete the section in about a week. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of that approach. Thanks. We might have a single sentence that drives people towards the appropriate section of creation-evolution controversy or something if they want to delve into this business, but macroevolution shouldn't be monopolized by this sort of thing even at this minor level, I think I agree. jps (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Religious Context

I may be wrong here (perhaps User:Peteruetz can clarify), but it seems to me I never hear biologists today make the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Though I am aware that it crops up in historical texts by biologists of earlier generations, I only really know this distinction from the confused ramblings of religious fundamentalists who want to claim they reject the former but not the latter, thus allowing themselves to defend six-day creationism without being bothered by the evidence around us that species can be observed to change over time. The article seems to acknowledge this by including a section on religious views near the bottom, but if this is the main locus for the terminology today, that ought to be in the head. As it stands, the article sounds like these are standard categories in modern biology, which is really not helpful. (If I am wrong, and these are still standard categories, then how about including in the head a quote from a current big name, Dawkins or someone of his ilk, documenting that it is still used.) Doric Loon (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

If I might add, it seems to me (speaking as someone with expertise on fundamentalism, not on biology), that the reason some fundamentalists have genuine problems in understanding evolution is that their concept of a "species" is not the same as the way a biologist would use the word. They think of a species as an immutable category with a thick black box drawn around it, not a random point on a spectrum that can have fuzzy boundaries with the next random point. I'm not sure whether that belongs in this article, but it is certainly part of what leads the religious right to make a big thing of accepting evolution up to but not beyond the species boundary. Doric Loon (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's correct: biologists (including me) usually don't make the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution because the process is the same.

However, I still think the distinction is useful, e.g. in order to explain how major transitions in evolution take place. While "microevolution" is easy to explain, "macroevolution" (i.e. major transitions) is often difficult to understand and certainly not obvious for non-experts.

I rewrote most of the page for two reasons: (1) for those interested in such major transitions, and (2) for religious zealots who don't understand the mechanisms :)

Speciation is always a matter of micro-evolution and those "easy" to explain (in the sense that not many mutations / changes are necessary for a new species to evolve). I will expand on that once I have time. You are absolutely correct that species are very fuzzy entities as there is almost always a lot of variation and very often there are no clear boundaries between closely related species. I am dealing with this problem on a daily basis as the curator of the Reptile Database (which collects data about all reptile species). Peteruetz (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Peteruetz Thanks, that's very useful to hear from a biologist. So macroevolution is microevolution continued for longer, a bit like the way a long walk is just a short walk which doesn't stop. I'll not make any suggestions for the article, since you obviously have it in hand. But do remember - and this is my main concern here - that understanding the fuzzy boundaries of species is a key step in escaping from fundamentalism, so let's try to make that as easy as possible. Doric Loon (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, macroevolution is not just microevolution continued for longer; macroevolution is about major steps forward. In other words: microevolution is often considered as quantitative and incremental while macroevolution is qualitative (that's my own definition but a lot of people would agree). For instance, if you go from a small species to a large species that's incremental. But if you go from having no teeth to suddenly having teeth, how do you explain that? How can entirely new things evolve out of nowhere? That's the question of macroevolution. I tried to provide a couple of examples for such events in my rewrite.

I'll work on the speciation thing shortly. Peteruetz (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now replaced the section previously called Species selection by new section "Speciation vs macroevolution" Peteruetz (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing links

In reality, the fossil record does not contain missing links

That is the reason they are called "missing"... but I think the sentence is not meant that way and should be reworded to avoid that possible misunderstanding. Something like "Actually, there are no large gaps in the fossil record".

Do we have a source for it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC) @

I made a change. Feel free to edit it. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks better now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Existence of Misconceptions Section

@Pepperbeast why did you revert my edit? There was consensus on the talk page. Scientists don't spend enough time debunking creationism to warrant its inclusion on this page in line with WP:ONEWAY. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologise. I wasn't following the discussion very closely. Feel free to revert. PepperBeast (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Major Changes to Fix Major Damage

SUMMARY OF CHANGES: The example of ‘elephant tusks’ was moved from the lead section to the subsection ‘Evolution of new organs and tissues’. I believe it fitted better as being part of the other examples listed there. I also reinstated sections on ‘speciation’ and ‘evolutionary faunas’ which were (erroneously) deleted 2 years ago (read further down for explanation). I added more details about the coinage of the term ‘macroevolution’ by Filipchenko. Added a new section on the relationship between micro- and macroevolution. Lastly, have completely changed the lead section. This is indeed a drastic change, but I believe it is justified (again see why further below). Not only have I kept the original citations, I also added more sources and detailed notes to back-up the changes.

REASONS FOR WHY: I was recently reviewing this wikipedia page, correcting some minor mistakes, but then I also found the very first paragraph describing macroevolution rather confusing.

• (05:58, 15 September 2024‎) Macroevolution usually means the evolution of large-scale structures and traits that go significantly beyond the intraspecific variation found in microevolution (including speciation).[1][2][3] In other words, macroevolution is the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders, etc.).[4]

The main cause of the confusion was the phrase “including speciation”, awkwardly tacked at the end in parentheses. Because of this, it’s unclear. Is this trying to say that speciation is not an example of macroevolution (which it is). I was curious about this so I looked back at older versions of the article and I found out when it changed and what was changed between two consecutive edits (original vs new)

• (16:52, 6 August 2022) Macroevolution in the modern sense is evolution that is guided by selection among interspecific variation, as opposed to selection among intraspecific variation in microevolution.[1][2][3] This modern definition differs from the original concept, which referred macroevolution to the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders, etc.).[4]
• (16:56, 6 August 2022) Macroevolution usually means the evolution of large-scale structures and traits that go significantly beyond intraspecific variation as found in microevolution (such as speciation).[1][2][3] In other words, macroevolution is the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders, etc.).[4]

Please note that the meaning of the paragraph has changed significantly. Not just the confusingly tacked “(including genetics)”. Previously, it said that the modern definition differs from the original concept (which is true), but now doesn’t say this?! What I find disturbing about this is that the paragraph has drastically changed, yet the citations did not. This isn’t a problem... IF the changes are in concordance with the content of those citations… but in fact they do not. If you read these citations, you would see that speciation is indeed considered an example of ‘macroevolution’ by the authors, and you would also see that the concept of ‘macroevolution’ has indeed shifted over time. These edits were erroneous.

Yet, it gets weirder. I was looking at the user (Peteruetz) who made these changes, and I noted that this particular edit was his 2nd edit on this wikipedia article. His very first edit was even worse IMO. Peteruetz’s edit deleted entire sections on "Evolutionary faunas" and "speciation”. The description this edit reads as follows:

• "Deleted "Evolutionary faunas" and "speciation" sections. The first had absolutely no substance and the second is rather irrelevant for macro-evolution, by definition)."

This is just wrong. Speciation IS macroevolution. Again, I have changed the lead section, while keeping all the old citations, added several more, and added detailed notes in order to prove this point. Furthermore, "evolutionary faunas has no substance"?? To be sure, the concept is not free from criticism, but to say it has no substance is just sheer ignorance. See this recent open access paper, which I also added to the wiki page. After reading in the ‘Talk:Macroevolution’ page, I can also see that I wasn’t the only one who found Peteruetz’s edits problematic.

With this I hope I have sufficiently explained myself for making these major edits. Nesslig20 (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again

Oh boy, few days after making some needed fixing (see section "Major Changes to Fix Major Damage" here on the talk page for context), I see that Peteruetz has deleted big parts of what I added. I am fine with such changes as long as good reasons are provided. These below... does not suffice:

• (14:25, 20 September 2024) (→‎top: shortened intro which was quite redundant and had quite a few vague and non-specific statements).
• (14:47, 20 September 2024) (→‎Macroevolutionary processes: rewrite intro paragraph for speciation section).

Rather ironic, considering how 'vague and non-specific' this edit summary is. Anyway, let's begin with a change I actually like. I did add a lot to the lead section. I don't agree with Peteruetz that my paragraphs were 'redundant, vague and non-specific'. On the contrary, these paragraphs very detailed but too much as an introductory. They would fit better in the section 'Microevolution vs Macroevolution' with some changes (1st part of my new edit).

Next, a change I liked less. In the first paragraph of the lead section, there was one sentence which made it clear that this is the modern definition used in the scientific literature. This was deleted. I think mentioning this is important, since it makes clear that (regardless what other usage the term may have) this is how scientists use the term. Better keep this sentence in the lead section (2nd part of my new edit).

Lastly, the bad one. In second edit, Peteruetz rewrote the first paragraph on speciation (under Macroevolutionary processes). This is rather frustrating, since this is one of the paragraphs which he deleted 2 years ago, because Peteruetz thinks speciation is - quote - "irrelevant to macro-evolution, by definition". This time, he replaced it entirely (key difference colored):

• OLD PARAGRAPH:According to the modern definition, the evolutionary transition from the ancestral to the daughter species is microevolutionary, because it results from selection (or, more generally, sorting) among varying organisms. However, speciation has also a macroevolutionary aspect, because it produces the interspecific variation species selection operates on.[4] Another macroevolutionary aspect of speciation is the rate at which it successfully occurs, analogous to reproductive success in microevolution.[2]
• NEW PARAGRAPH: Speciation is the process in which populations within one species change to an extent at which they become reproductively isolated, that is, they cannot interbreed anymore. However, this classical concept has been challenged and more recently, a phylogenetic or evolutionary species concept has been adopted. Their main criteria for new species is to be diagnosable and monophyletic, that is, they form a clearly defined lineage.[28][29] Thus, speciation does not require macroevolutionary changes.

Oh dear. The old paragraphs states that speciation "has also a macroevolutionary aspect". The new paragraph states speciation "does not require macroevolutionary change". The conclusion has made a complete one-eighty. Peteruetz, this is something you need to make clear in your edit summary so everyone will know exactly what you've changed!! Furthermore, is this change actually warranted? I noticed two new citations:

• 28. Luckow, Melissa (1995). "Species Concepts: Assumptions, Methods, and Applications". Systematic Botany. 20 (4): 589–605. doi:10.2307/2419812. ISSN 0363-6445.
• 29. Frost, Darrel R.; Hillis, David M. (1990). "Species in Concept and Practice: Herpetological Applications". Herpetologica. 46 (1): 86–104. ISSN 0018-0831.

Do these sources state the conclusion that "speciation does not require macroevolutionary changes"? No! Not only don't they make such a statement, they don't mention 'macroevolution'. Not even once! Thus, Peteruetz has added is an unverified/uncited claim. It's also a claim that is contradicted by numerous citations and footnotes already included in the wikipedia article (in the leading section). These make it clear that 'macroevolution' is defined as evolution that occurs at and above the species level. Thus, speciation is macroevolution by definition.Peteruetz, you've made it clear that you are of the opinion that speciation is irrelevant to macroevolution. However, nobody should just insert their personal opinions in a wikipedia article without the citation(s) that backup the added statements. I have returned the old paragraph. I also kept the new paragraph Peteruetz wrote, except for I the uncited sentence (colored red above). Nesslig20 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that you left the introduction to just two paragraphs. That's much better than an introduction with a lot of detail that should go in the main body of the article.

I think I understand your emphasis on speciation as a component of macroevolutionary change but, in my opinion, you are putting far too much emphasis on this particular aspect of a large and complex field of study. This is important because you seem to be focusing on macroevolution as a "process" at the level above species whereas I see macroevolution as a historical field of study whose main goal is to work out the events that gave rise to life as we see it today. I tried to explain this in the essay I published on my blog. Somebody (not me) posted a link to that essay (currently reference #27). I believe I supported that view of macroevolution with several quotes from scientists working in the field of macroevolution and that's why I inserted something in the article under "Microevolution vs Macroevolution."

You raise a question about the best definition of the term "macroevolution." The article begins with "Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which (sic) occur at and above the species level." You insist that this is the common definition used by contemporary scientists. I suppose that you could stretch this definition to include everything that falls into the field of macroevolutionary studies but I think it's missing something important. I prefer the definition used by Jeffrey S. Levinton in his book "Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution" (p. 6).

"Macroevolution must be a field that embraces the ecological theater, including the range of time scales of the ecologist, to the sweeping historical changes available only to paleontological study. It must include the peculiarities of history, which must have had singular effects on the directions that the composition of the world's biota took (e.g., the splitting of continents, the establishment of land and oceanic isthmuses). It must take the entire network of phylogenetic relationships and impose a framework of genetic relationships and appearances of character changes. Then the nature of evolutionary directions and the qualitative transformation of ancestor to descendant over major taxonomic distances must be explained."

Note the emphasis on historical events, especially unique events that don't count as a "process" or a "pattern." Gould also emphasizes this aspect of macroevolution in "Wonderful Life" where he focuses on contingency and replaying the tape of life. It's true that you bring up some of these ideas in the material you added to the section on 'Microevolution vs Macroevolution" but they seem to be in conflict with the definition in the introduction that you insist is the common definition used by modern scientists.

Is it true that all examples of speciation are examples of macroevolution? What about the classic examples of phyletic gradualism? What about the recent examples of new species that have arisen in the last 100 years? Does that count as macroevolution according to your definition? Genome42 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)