Talk:Mosaic 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skoud001. Peer reviewers: Cnahin, Nvega004.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment[edit]

This article needs a thorough 'going over', for language etc. No time for me to do it, just now but I've starrted. - Ballista 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again: "Almost of human features, when compared with proximal apes were from this nature, not implying a lot of change in structural genes, as classically was considered." Wot? — OttoMäkelä (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started trying to fix it. That sentence -- I think -- means "Most novel human features (compared to closely related apes) were of this nature, not implying major change in structural genes, as was classically considered." Vultur (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query 'Background'[edit]

It seems to me that the section 'Background' is not on the same subject. I propose to cut it out, but wait for other comments.

Also note that the bullet points need a bit of fleshing out, and will get it in due course. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments seem just as apposite all these years on. The article seriously needs a rewrite... but I wonder if it hasn't simply been overtaken by evolutionary developmental biology, which doesn't just vaguely suggest trends but offers actual mechanisms for those trends. There's no doubt at all that different switches can be thrown during development (making snakes' bodies longer, say), independently of other switches, and there are many thousands of examples available from molecular level upwards.

By the way, Greg Laden wrote about this back in 2011, specifically critiquing this article! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]