Talk:Macroevolution: Difference between revisions
m Automated conversion |
get rid of this page, it just recaps discussion from elsewhere |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Although I am willing to do this myself I'd like to invite those who have already been working on the article to respond/try this first, SR |
Although I am willing to do this myself I'd like to invite those who have already been working on the article to respond/try this first, SR |
||
---- |
|||
Seeing that this page largely recaps discussion held on other |
|||
pages (such as the [[evolution]] page) and really needs discussion |
|||
in the broader context of evolutionary theory rather than as a |
|||
standalone topic, I would argue that this page should basically point |
|||
to the relevant other pages. --[[user:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] |
|||
Revision as of 21:26, 22 August 2002
The biggest questions I have about this concept is are:
- Is macroevolution intended to mean a single big change that happens, or rather a series of microevolutions that when added up result in macroevolution?
- Why do the small changes not, over time, add up to a big one?
- How many microevolutions do there have to be before it becomes a macroevolution?
- Do creationists accept that most microevolutions are going to be harmful, but a few are beneficial?
- Do creationists accept that the beneficial microevolutions can replace the original organism (survival of the fittest)?
- How, within this theory, is a species defined? As two groups that can not breed?
- If so, what about organisms that do not have sexual reproduction (e.g., bacteria)?
I think these issues should be addressed in the article. --Dmerrill
Based solely on the article, it seems to me that "macroevolution" is not a theory at all but a concept, and that the conceptual distinction between micorevolution and macroevolution is important in the theory (or theories) of "intelligent design." If I am correct, the article should be changed. If I am incorrect, I for one would appreciate the article making the point clearer and explaining the theory (as opposed to the concept).
By the way, this conceptual distinction relies on an underlying assumption about the nature of "species." Darwinian evolutionary theory does not make this distinction largely because it views species more as statistical rather than ontological phenomena. The diference between how Darwinianists and non-Darwinianists view "species" is central to understanding why Darwinianists do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, and why non-Darwinianists do, so I think the article would be improved if this underlying view were explained.
Although I am willing to do this myself I'd like to invite those who have already been working on the article to respond/try this first, SR
Seeing that this page largely recaps discussion held on other pages (such as the evolution page) and really needs discussion in the broader context of evolutionary theory rather than as a standalone topic, I would argue that this page should basically point to the relevant other pages. --Robert Merkel