Talk:Macromutation

German Geneticist

I removed the adjective German because it has implications beyond Goldsmidt's nationality, given the ideas of the Nazis and genetics. In fact, he was a German Jew, who moved to the United States. This is all stated in his biographical page, which is linked.--Pkatz (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV error

I removed the last paragraph of the text:

The "Hopeful Monster" theory is used by creationists today to show that evolution can't work when they trot it out as necessary for evolution. Creationists who rely on this for support often ignore the fact that "Hopeful Monster" is not a basis of evolution theory.

I'm deleting this because of the POV "trot it out" and especially for "often ignore the fact". Maybe if this stub ever got worked into a more complete article, it would be appropriate to summarize the role of this term in religious debate.

Creationist viewpoint on Hopeful monsters

Three times now I have reverted to remove approximately the same changes to the article. The text is here. I have reverted this since I don't believe that the statements it makes are accurate or NPOV. Specifically,

• (i) It is not punctuated equilibria, but a particularly unlikely means of genetic change (there is no need in "punk-eek" for the change to be near-instantanous, only fast relative to the resolution of the fossil record).
• (ii) Hopeful mosters theory has not been gaining ground among scientists: ISI web of science finds only five articles mentioning hopeful monsters (compare with 334 for puncuated equlibrium).
• (iii) The David Kitt quote is radically out of context, and is a traditional quote mine [1].
• (iv) The article on a whole misrepresents the scientific viewpoint on hopeful monsters,
• (v) the edits delete useful material.

Thoughts? --Hansnesse 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Creationists have mangled the Wikipedia entry on Goldschmidt's "Hopeful Monsters"

The entry on "Hopeful Monsters" that I'm looking at (May 8, 2006) is a classic creationist misrepresentation of punctuated equilibrium (PE is not, and never was, based on Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" idea for a mechanism).

The entry also displays the long-discredited creationist claim that "examples of intermediate forms linking separate species have not been found in the fossil record." That statement is just plain false.

This entry is highly inaccurate, and has clearly been sabotaged by a creationist promoting scientific misinformation. It should be edited immediately.

I have restored an older version, which I think represents a more scientific view. Of course, further work may be needed. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins "Stretched Jetliner"

Might it be interesting to add Richard Dawkins' notions on "Boeing 747" macromutations versus "Stretched Jetliner (DC-8)" macromutations? As Dawkins points out, while a macromutation isn't going to produce a viable new species, a certain class of macromutations can be useful in practice -- adding more ribs to snakes being the classic example ("Stretched Jetliner").

Just a notion for discussion -- maybe it's well enough discussed elsewhere? MrG 4.228.21.136 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect reference

For the author of this article,

The first quote by Stephen Jay Gould in this article, beginning with "As a Darwinian, I wish to defend . . ." has the reference [1] attached to it. This leads to a document by Goldschmidt, not Gould. In fact, the correct reference for this quote (which I just read!) is from the essay "Return of the Hopeful Monster," reprinted as essay #18 in Gould's 1980 book "The Panda's Thumb." This reference is not included at all in the notes, and presumably should be.

Also, near the end of the "Use by creationist" section, the author writes: "Paleontologists such as Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steven M. Stanley argued that transitional forms may be rare between species, but "they are abundant between larger groups."[7] Moreover, none of these paleontologists argued in support of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" hypothesis."

In fact, the point of Gould's essay referenced above is that he DOES support large parts of Goldschmidt's theory, or at least he did circa 1980. Also see Gould's essay, "Helpful Monsters," reprinted as essay #15 in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes."

--Larry Goeller lawrence.goeller@osd.mil

138.88.202.253 (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Contents of old, unsourced article

[The original article, currently WP:USURPTITLEd and sitting at Macro-mutation contained the following unsourced material. If anybody can find a source for it, and considers it useful, it can be re-added to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC) ]

Many biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small changes, such as the slight differences between parents and their children, some of which can result from mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a sudden large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental than beneficial.

While macromutations appear to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods, at the genetic level where the original change occurs, very few changes to genes may actually be necessary to result in the large physical change. Some genes control other genes, where the higher the level of control, then the larger the change those genes can cause (see Homeobox). Biologists make a distinction between changes to the genotype, and the resulting body structure resulting from those genes phenotype.

For example, polydactyl individuals have a large resulting change in their body structure (extra toes), but that change can result from a small change in their genotype. This is not the only possible cause of such changes. They can also result from errors during development, but such non-gene changes are not inherited by future generations.

Macromutation in chromosomes

Instantaneous biological adaptation must occur when a non-deleterious or rarely useful change occurs in the number of chromosomes in the organism's phenome. This must have occurred when the ancestral ape produced offspring which possessed 46 instead of 48 chromosomes, leading to the eventual evolution of humanity.

This change cannot have taken place slowly as odd numbers and partial chromosomes in diploid creatures are not reproductively viable. Although the possibility of finding a similarly endowed mate to enable reproduction is rather unlikely, the evolution from a single-celled organism to the complex multi-cellular beings found today was equally unlikely, making the possibility not entirely impossible and a rather viable rationale for the differences in chromosome number between the other Great Apes and humans.

This does not invalidate adaptation taking place as a result of slowly developing variation acted on by natural selection, as the genetic sequencing changes wrought by natural selection may lead to chemical instability of the genome concerned, causing fusion, splitting of chromosomes, usually deleterious, but very occasionally useful.

[End of unsourced material from original article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC) ]