View source for Talk:Punctuated equilibrium

{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=08:10, 27 June 2007
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=140910157

|action2=GAR
|action2date=20:19, May 29, 2009
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=293141653
|action2link=Talk:Punctuated equilibrium/GA1
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Natsci
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=high}}
}}
{{external peer review
| date = [[December 14]], [[2005]]
| org = Nature (journal)|Nature
| comment = No significant errors or major omissions were found. }}
{{Annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Punctuated equilibrium/Archive %(counter)d}}
{{archive box
|root=
 |image=
 |box-width=
 |image-width=
 |auto=short
|age=
 31
|units=
 days
|bot=
 lowercase sigmabot III}}

==Dixon's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium in language==
I've tagged the end of the following for citation:
{{quote|In linguistics, [[R. M. W. Dixon]] has proposed a punctuated equilibrium model for language histories,<ref group="ref">Dixon, R.M.W. (1997). ''The rise and fall of languages'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> with reference particularly to the prehistory of the [[indigenous languages of Australia]] and his objections to the proposed [[Pama–Nyungan languages|Pama–Nyungan]] language family there. Although his model has raised considerable interest, it does not command majority support within linguistics.{{citation needed|date=November 2015}}}}
Please note that I'm not disputing the degree of support that he enjoys (nor the validity of the hypothesis), just that it really needs sourcing. — [[User:Sasuke Sarutobi|Sasuke Sarutobi]] ([[User talk:Sasuke Sarutobi|talk]]) 14:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist|group=ref}}

== Morphological Mutations ==

What is really never considered here is whether there is evidence that the rate and nature of the required beneficial or neutral morphological mutations or other evolutionary processes actually exists in the real world to achieve the sudden leaps.  If the over 1 million species currently extant have been studied for over 100 years to some degree, this represents a vast sample in which to look for individual or sequential beneficial morphological mutations, or genetic triggers, that could cause major sustained changes in form and mode of life, especially considering the well documented environmental pressures of the last 1000 years.   Is the assumed mechanism of change actually evidence based at all, or is it pure assumption and hoping that the required variations will come along when needed as easily as whistling up a taxi?  Non morphological beneficial mutations are actually working against evolution as a whole, in that they make the existing phenotype more fit for survival without external change, and this is entirely consistent with the fossil record.  The idea that flying birds could have evolved in 10 million years is a dramatic case in point.  The accumulated Morphological changes required should be enormous.  The rate of suitable morphological mutations, never volunteered or approximated, must be high.  There should be some convincing evidence in the current sample of life that we can study that such mechanisms are credible, but I'm not aware of any, so for me that represents the biggest challenge for the theory.  Unfortunately this would require an evaluation of fundamental assumptions, which no one seems to want to do, lest they be labeled creationists.  The theory can be tested against real world evidence, and it appears to fail the test.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.56.25.130|122.56.25.130]] ([[User talk:122.56.25.130#top|talk]]) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I would suggest getting a doctorate in a major field of biology, then you can publish your work in peer reviewed journals. If your findings hold up to professional scrutiny, and your arguments successfully overturn a century of scientific study, then we can cite your work in this article. Please keep us posted. [[User:Cesaravi|Cesaravi]] ([[User talk:Cesaravi|talk]]) 06:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Punctuated equilibrium]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813132571|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422154445/http://www.nileseldredge.com/NELE.htm to http://www.nileseldredge.com/NELE.htm

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

== Why isn't the word "inbreeding" in this article? ==

Isn't inbreeding a proposed problem with punctuated equilibrium? I'm talking about deleterious expression of recessive traits. [[User:WorldQuestioneer|WorldQuestioneer]] ([[User talk:WorldQuestioneer|talk]]) 17:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)