Talk:Macroevolution/Archive 2

Concerning DIREKTOR's and Novangelis' vandalism of my edits on Macro-evolution

Why are you guys trolling? Direktor: How is it an invented term to say "macro-evolutionary biologists" WHEN THAT IS WHAT IS BEING REFERRED TO ON THE MACROEVOLUTION PAGE? Can you get any more absurd? Was "biologists" in references to CREATIONIST BIOLOGISTS? OF COURSE NOT, and yet in keeping with a weasel, you would have it so that people think "biologists" are only those who support MACRO-EVOLUTION. Second, what does it matter even if it were an "invented term", is that a sin? Is that forbidden in Wikipedia? Third, IT'S A PHRASE pointing out to what type of biologists are being referred to, and there is no law in Wikipedia and it is no sin, to clarify. Fourth, I already stated why I was removing, as I said in the notes, certain references which were not relevant. Fifth: what does the fact that the mainstream (and it was also left out the "scientific community" mentioned was the MAINSTREAM one (again with the weasel-wording and bigotry) have to do with CRITICISMS of macro-evolution? NOTHING, it's distracting propaganda used to distract any reader from focusing on the criticisms and to instead focus on THE ALLEGED CONSENSUS, and as administrators in Wikipedia love to point out only when it is convenient: "the truth is not determined by consensus". Can you answer my points? NO you can't Mr. LOLz, all you can do is repeat and divert those who input the truth to the talk page, to delay endlessly any progress, with the pretense of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and "truth isn't determined by consensus". The first immature remark you left in your first reversion of my edit shows what kind of mind you have, your level of maturity, and your true concern for facts: none. All you can do is make insults, mere claims based on your feelings, while disregarding any reasons anyone gives you if they don't agree with your feelings.Oriclan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

Your edits to macroevolution were promoting a viewpoint held by such a small minority among biologists as to fall under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Our articles have to conform with WP:WEIGHT policy when it comes to showing such minority views. You were also using AiG as a source – verification is required from a reliable third party source, not from creationists promoting their own views. Please discuss your proposals for changes on this talk page, and refrain from edit warring which is not the way to get anything in articles. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedias sanctioned trolls: stop vandalizing and spreading your anti-Christian and anti-theism propaganda

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are you hiding this edit?: ==Criticisms of macroevolution== {{Main article|Objections to evolution}} The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within animal kinds, which change is referred to as "microevolution", but deny that one animal kind can evolve into another, which change is called "macroevolution". The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. The Darwinists Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic. The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution". Arguments often arise between creationists and so called evolutionists over evolutionists' failure to recognize the word "kind" in Genesis as not being equivalent to the word "species", hence arguments from evolutionists against the Bible, like, "How could Noah have fit hundreds of thousands of species in the Ark?": God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes. What an absurd excuse you made Dave Souza: "Oh this is fringe beliefs", uh Dave: What do you think the criticism section is about according to bigoted trolls like yourself? The alleged fringe vs the "mainstream". Duh Dave. Apparently you evolutionists have major logic problems eh? What's your next excuse trolls: "Oh this is about macro evolution" "oh this is about scientists" "oh this is about criticisms" "oh bananas are yellow". Truly: YOU SAY ANYTHING AS A PRETENSE FOR REMOVING FACTS, SOURCED OR NOT. And include unsourced claims all the time. But oooooh, when someone obviously not an evolution worshiper like yourself dares fix your ranting propaganda, you freak out and say whatever as a reason to revert the change back to the stagnating ranting stupidity. And Dave and the other trolls, as for "fringe", why do you keep lying? You were already shown this here, and suppressed it: 40 percent of scientists in 1997 believed that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation" - http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm But fine then, keep "harming" Wikipedia, keep up your obvious (to those who aren't ignorant and mentally ill themselves) bias. Heap up your sins and increase your punishment. Keep up the immature narcissistic "LOL"s. Show everyone your lack of concern for logic and facts and that all you care about is pushing your personal agendas. Keep showing that you are bullies and cyberstalkers under the guise of teachers and helpers. And it says a lot that the very talk page points out that this article is under heavy dispute, and yet you hide that notice from the main article. Nah: No propaganda and bias there, no deception there. Not. Like you trolls love to say: Fail.Oriclan (talk) If you have anything constructive to add to this page, it would be better to present it calmly and neutrally rather than a spittle-flecked tirade... — Scientizzle 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Webster's New College Dictionary

What's up with removing a validly sourced reference? Last I checked Webster's New World College Dictionary is generally accepted as a good reference dictionary.--Gniniv (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, Gniniv is referencing this edit followed by this revert. — Scientizzle 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Valid source for the meaning of words, yes. But it's not a source for "formal" definitions of scientific terms. Dictionaries are written by experts on the meanings of words, not by people who are experts on the science. Guettarda (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WHAT?!!! Since when does a dictionary disagree with science?--Gniniv (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys need to look at WP:VERIFY if not WP:V--Gniniv (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a joke? — Scientizzle 02:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that WP:VERIFY = WP:V? — Scientizzle 04:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not...In the interest of not starting a edit war, can you explain the reasoning behind the removal of a validly referenced source from a recognized dictionary??--Gniniv (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly accept a different definition, if you can find one that differs from the one I gave while still coming from a acceptable source.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, since when does the "formal" definition of science differ from what they put in a dictionary for "science" (that is what I get from your reasoning...)--Gniniv (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Plumbago (talk · contribs) recently gave this example. Gabbe (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we come to the compromise of including my reference without the atrocious formatting??--Gniniv (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the articles (Macroevolution and Microevolution) to see what you think....--Gniniv (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, Webster's is redundant and not helpful; the specialist refs are fine. A dictionary is a tertiary source and inappropriate in explaining a specialist subject when it differs in any way from expert specialist material. If it doesn't differ, there's no need for it. . . dave souza, talk 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article is about macroevolution, not about the word "macroevolution". See use–mention distinction and WP:DICDEF. While Webster's is a reliable source for information about the word "macroevolution", it's not a reliable source for information about macroevolution. Gabbe (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gabbe. I was thinking something along those lines, but I wasn't aware of that article. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell me if I am wrong, but I think the Dictionary definition I gave told what Macroevolution is, and not what the root word derived from..--Gniniv (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you responding to the comments made above? Have you looked at the links mentioned? If not, please do so. If you have, please explain what you want to do and why it is compliant with the guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources you gave and I agree that we could use a better reference than a dictionary, but I don't think a discussion website (Talk Origins) really qualifies as a valid reference for the definitions either...--Gniniv (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To save other people from wondering whether they should respond, I will mention that you are conducting this conversation here and at Talk:Microevolution where I have already pointed out that you can visit WP:RSN and put "talkorigins" in the search archives box at the top to see some of the many previous discussions that have established the reliability of the source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that the reference has been improved and I appreciate it--Gniniv (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding clarification of Micro vs. Macro

The original article failed to establish the correlation between micro and macroevolution. The part I originally took out can stay, it is correct on its own, but I think it is important to lay out in the introduction the close relationship between the two. In the microevolution:Misuse(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Misuse) page it explains that the two are qualitatively identical, and for consistency's sake the same should be reflected here. Furthermore on that micro page the American Association for the Advancement of Science claims that attempting to differentiate from the two has no scientific merit whatsoever.(http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.3.150 (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The AAAS link doesn't have static content, and appears to have changed since you read it. Perhaps they didn't mean what you thought they did. Narayanese (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes I see this now. However that one lack of a source does nothing to invalidate the claim.

Anyways I give up now. I don't know why you are so determined to have two articles that contradict each other but it is stuff like this that make people not believe/understand evolution. You are promoting the ambiguity of evolution for reasons that are beyond me. This does nothing to elucidate the subject (as I understand wikipedia attempts to do) but does a bit to cloud it and confuse people about the facts.

I am going to attempt to clean up this unclear language in the article...--Gniniv (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Misuse request

Please add the following from a previous place in this discussion to the "MISUSE" section of the article,

The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibian (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 November 2010

I don't want to jump into the middle of a throw down, but I thought another outside view might be helpful. This section is labeled "Misuse" but the section itself feels like it is aimed directly at creationists as opposed to being a general summary. It feels very... aggressive. For example, is there a reason to keep repeating that it is creationist / anti-evolution proponents that are misusing the term? Like here "Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents". Perhaps it would be better to just say "Contrary to this belief". Just food for thought. I feel like I'm being not so subtly brainwashed to hate the opposing view. Or, just label it as Misuse by Creationists and Anti-Evolution Proponents. That should clear things up that it isn't a general misuse section.Dlpolanco (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Species problem

About a month back in passing I added a reference here to the species problem a while back, don't visit this WP page often but notice it was reverted pretty quickly as 'irrelevant'; sorry to be a mite argumentative here, but how on earth is it irrelevant to the article? The very first introductory passage cites the species distinction as a reference for differentiation between the two, since the entire article goes on to discuss the debate over these distinctions anyway, I think that observing for the general reader quite how little agreement there is on something as fundamental as the underlying definition of 'species' is far from irrelevant - in fact, it's quite important that the mention and link to the relevant WP page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem) is included somewhere fairly prominently in this article.

I'm not the sort of person to get into angry and undignified edit wars, so I'm not going to repeat the original edit - however I do feel removing that edit (from 11:48, 28 October 2011‎) wasn't helpful as the reference was adding something to the article. If anyone other WP editors reading this talk page are in agreement then perhaps a case will be made for including reference to the species problem somewhere in this article.

Kind regards,

M.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.177.176 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This change added "(Note that this definition is subject to the species problem, complicating the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution)" to the first paragraph of the lead. One problem is that the lead is supposed to be a summary of topics covered in the article, so it is not the place for additional notes. Another is that it is essentially an unsourced comment—regardless of its merits, that sort of text is routinely removed to avoid articles becoming packed with the opinions of a wide variety of editors. I agree that, when details are examined, the concept of a species is hard to pin down, but the article is pretty clear that the macro/micro distinction does not exist. I'm not sure this is the right article to mention the species problem, but the first step towards that would be to find a suitable book that devotes a significant section to the topic of macroevolution and also mentions the species problem. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair dos. I think you hit the real problem on the head: "the article is pretty clear that the distinction doesn't exist"; however the opening para seems to directly contradict this by actually then defining a distinction. You have to begin with a definition of what you're trying to challenge in order to provide a specific, meaningful refutation. I think one way or another this lead really needs a re-write; the overall impression one gets is of an article that really doesn't have a coherent idea of what it's trying to say. If the purpose of that definition in the intro is to set up a 'straw man' definition to then knock down, that could be done much more clearly (although I do also wonder if it strays close to being OR...)

It doesn't help that the microevol and macroevol pages are somewhat cross-contradictory as well as self-contradictory. I don't have a quick-fix suggestion for this; it might be that it would be better to allow the 'micro' and 'macro' pages to presuppose their respective definitions and discuss the implications thereof within those remits, and then quite distinctly to offer a point of reference for a critique of this distinction, giving an analysis of possible proposed distinctions and then assessing them in terms of their utility, veracity, critical acceptance in terms of usage in peer-reviewed research, etc. Clearly, some analysis is essential as the distinction is used (rightly or wrongly) in a substantial volume of peer-reviewed literature, as any cursory analysis of citation databases reveals.

It's a pity WP's coverage of this matter is so wanting; it does rather undermine one's confidence in other articles on related subjects. But I haven't got the time or expertise to support improving this content.

Kind regards, M.S.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.177.176 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 

Contrary to claims by creationists...

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS ARTICLE IS EXTREMELY BIASED

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[1][4]

??? "Contrary to claims by creationists"  ???

Why is this statement, wholly factual or not (it's not), included in the opening explanation of what Macroevolution is?

Can we also then say "Contrary to claims by Atheists" microevolution is not understood at all."  ???

Both of these statements are true at some level for specific individuals, but for neither group as a whole, (Creationists & Atheists) This sentence can only be factual if you are expressing the understanding of a select few, not all creationists as a whole. That is very unbalanced and biased.

This proclamation (Contrary to claims by creationists) needs to be removed completely as it fails to add anything necessary to understand Macroevolution. I would remove it myself right now, but I thought it needed to be exposed how ridiculous it is in the first place for this to be included. I took the time to say this for those who think they are being level headed, honest and unbiased in their contributions to Wikipedia when it comes to their statements that directly or indirectly tie into the origin of life and God at any level.

Why can't the last sentence read "Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDoeith (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Among other things, creationists have been repeatedly recorded making the claim that microevolution and macroevolution are somehow, someway fundamentally different processes, which is specifically why that statement is in there. We can not say "Contrary to claims by Atheists" microevolution is not understood at all" because that is a blatantly false statement on several levels (i.e., because scientists, not atheists, claim that microevolution is thoroughly understood because it has been studied thoroughly for at least 20 decades), and that it is a direct violation of Wikipedia rules, policies and spirit to include blatant lies just for spite.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Mesoevolution

Relatively high and complex structural reorganization via mutation (the "mesoevolution" of Dobzhansky, 1958) has been directly observed.

"[W]e have recently succeeded in producing in experiments some genetic changes which seem to transcend the limits of microevolution, and for which I have suggested a tentative label of mesoevolution."

- Dobzhansky, T. (1958). "Evolution at Work". Science. Vol. 28. pp.1091-1098.

GiantTarsier (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Copying text between articles, adding missing long citations

There are three articles with the short citations to "Pinholster 2006." but no long ones in a References section which were created with the following edits:

• Macroevolution -- user:Aunt Entropy at 17:31, 17 October 2009 (attempt to add ref) diff
• Kent Hovind -- user:Kevinkor2 at 22:50, 25 September 2010 (Copied general argument from Creation–evolution controversy) diff
• Denialism -- user:ComfyKem at 15:13, 28 February 2013 -- no comment diff

Thanks to Kevinkor2 including the name of the article it is possible to trace the original to Creation–evolution controversy. Including the name of the article is part of the copyright policy, but it also helps editors find and fix problems like this one. See

• Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Copying within Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia § Other reasons for attributing text

I am going to fix the missing long citation by using versions from Creation–evolution controversy using the same date as Kevinkor2 did: 21 September 2010

-- PBS (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

can we re-edit the macroevolution page?

Dear all, I have a background in academics, and I find that the macroevolution page does not give an objective point of view on macroevolution. I see that this view is shared with many readers (see below as well as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oxfordwang, and for further discussion, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions).

Here are some suggestions for changes I would like to make, and I hope others will be interesting in helping to improve the page.

1. I think everyone agrees that macroevolution is the study of evolution at or above the species level. But many disputes arise on whether or not the study of macroevolutionary phenomena, such as extinction and speciation, can be reduced to a genetic level of analysis. Many macroevolutionary scholars take abiotic factors such as climate change or meteor impacts into account to explain macroevolutionary events, as well as group size, developmental constraints, etc. I think these polemics should be differentiated, they could function as an entry point to restructure the article, and the various points of view, their pros and cons could become listed.

2. Because macroevolution transcends genetic selection at a population level, the study of macroevolution also relates to fields such as biophysics, besides biogeography, ecology etc. Here too, it would be great if we could give a more representative view of the fields involved, and how they contribute.

3. For some, Macroevolution also relates to theorizing on major transitions, evolutionary trends, and hierarchy theory, and these are not discussed in the entry. could we link those?

4. On yet another level, macroevolution is not merely a natural phenomenon, it also associates with an academic, epistemic culture where scholars are actively engaged in defining a research agenda for macroevolution. as such, this sociological and philosophical (epistemic) dimension could also be included in an entry.

5. the further reading list is not representative, and we could make it so by adding some major works, handbooks, etc.

6. the entry on the misuse of macroevolution by creationists, I think that should be a separate page, or perhaps be added to pages on creationism disputes, because macroevolution is first and foremost an academic research area and an actual phenomenon. that it is used by creationists is not a defining feature of the field in and of itself, nor of the phenomenon.

sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, this particular page only concerns itself with biological evolution.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 89.180.149.197, thanks for commenting here. I reverted this edit to the page because describing macroevolution as an "evolutionary research program" in the first sentence of the article, or even in the introduction, is not helpful to readers who want to understand what macroevolution is in nature. This edit was similarly reverted by another because it didn't clarify the process of macroevolution for readers. The edit diluted the biological fact of macroevolution in vague language: "a natural phenomenon brought forth by both biotic and abiotic, non-genetic factors that eventually underlie the major transitions and evolutionary trends found over the course of life's evolution." And like the previous edit, it made macroevolution seem like more of an argument and a hobby than a natural phenomenon: "…an evolutionary research program…defined in many ways… according to some…remains a significant topic of debate…."

You are citing a book that appears to be a good resource and includes a number of famous evolutionary biologists, including Douglass Futuyma and Bernard Wood. Maybe you could focus on editing the main body of the article, and not the introductory paragraphs (called the "lead"), to start out with? The lead is a summary of the whole article, so it's inappropriate to change that first, without making changes in the article body.

When you make your changes, would please add specific page numbers, so that we can locate the exact text you are referencing while you edit? Thanks - I hope you can contribute with all of us productively and make the page better. That way others here can review your contributions-Darouet (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Darouet, thanks for these comments, and you make good points indeed that should most definitely be taken into account. I will however not be making these changes myself, because as of yesterday, I unfortunately agree with M.S.'s comments above, that my confidence in wiki became severely undermined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.148.109 (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported citation for observed macroevolution

Under "Symantic issue" section, there is a sentence that states:

"evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature."

This sentence cites 3 papers and 1 website. I just skimmed through those 3 papers and cannot find any observed evolution beyond the species level. Can anyone point it out to me please? Otherwise, I don't think these 3 papers can be used to support the claim that macroevolution has been observed.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Beyond the species level" means "exceeding the species level". That is, speciation is macroevolution. Speciation is what those papers observe.

You creationists don't get to redefine stuff to make the wording of your worldview true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hob Gadling (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. In order to avoid a future confusion by other readers, I have clarified the article by explicitly mentioning speciation as to what biologists consider macroevolution.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Unqualified citation: Talkorigins website

There are many citations to Talkorigins website. This is not an academic, scientific journal, or reputable news website. This is an atheist blog website devoted to the creation/evolution controversy. As such, it is reasonable to assume that a bias exists on this website.

Thus, all citations to this website should be removed because it is unqualified to be used for a science article like this page. Otherwise, if this atheist website is acceptable, then a creationist website should also be acceptable as well.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Talk.origins is a valuable, qualified and knowledgeable source with inputs from real working scientists. There is nothing "atheist" about it, and your assumption is baseless. Creationism has lost, one and a half centuries ago. Talk.origins only documents its failure. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree on the qualification of Talk.origins as being a reliable source. Even Talkorigins itself admits to this:

• http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html

"How do I know the contents of this archive are reliable?"

Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact.

• http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.

Even they acknowledge that their contents may contain errors or misstatements of fact because they had not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Furthermore, they themselves encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature.

 

Again, Talkorigins is not an academic, scientific journal, or reputable news website. And any reasonable person would recognize that they lack neutrality. Although the primary literature cited by Talkorigins are most likely reliable, their articles do not meet the scientific reliability (as even they admit) and neutrality.

Wikipedia does not allow a citation of a creationism website even though the authors are actual scientists and cites reliable primary literatures. So it would not be neutral to allow a citation of Talkorigins.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

While the site shouldn't be used as a source of information without qualification, it is a moderated, curated repository of essays written by experts in the field. In this sense I see no reason why it can't be used for uncontested statements of fact, or for more controversial opinions with attribution.

If you want to take the issue to RSN, that's your right. -Darouet (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, "[t]he Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective". Neutrality, as set out in Wikipedia's policy, requires due weight to that mainstream scientific perspective, and requires that we don't give "equal validity" to creationist views, which in terms of science are clearly fringe views. Policy also sets requirements when dealing with pseudoscience. Creationist websites are primary sources, and can be used with care provided they are shown as the minority view in terms of science, and are presented in the context of how the topic is seen by mainstream scientists and experts. ToA is a good source for that majority scientific view. . dave souza, talk 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Fact and theory

We have an entire wikipedia article dedicated to the issue of describing Evolution as fact and theory. I see no reason to replicate that discussion here. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, we should stick to describing the topic of macroevolution here. WP:FOCUS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Macroevolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221000000/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705140010/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf to http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202043206/http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx to http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macroevolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)