Talk:Largest-scale trends in evolution

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

EDIT

Talk archives

Archive 1 (August 2006)

The presentation of Turney's model as exhibiting a largest-scale trend is not unbiased. For a trend to be largest-scale, it should be exhibited in all environments, including unchanging environments. Given that Turney's model can only claim to exhibit the trend in highly dynamic environments, the portrayal of the model as a largest-scale trend is a dubious one.

The use of the word 'even' in the sentence "This trend persists even when the local environment undergoes repeated random changes" is misleading and implies 'not only'; 'even' should at least have been substituted with the word 'only'. There seems no good reason to have used the word 'even' here other than to suggest that the model is more of a largest-scale trend that it can reasonably be claimed to. Of course, this change would further affirm doubts about whether the trend can be considered largest-scale.

Untitled

Please insert new comments here. Old comments are in the archive (see the box on the right).

merge with Evolutionary progress

I suggested this, with my reasons given at Talk:Evolutionary progress.Mycroft7 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source citation

I am not an expert or specialist in the field, so I cannot comment on the content of this article, but I can see plainly that its sources are not cited according to the standard format of Wikipedia. In addition, though the prose is lucid enough, the general structure of the article could correspond better to the Wikipedia standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.139.251 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]