Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23398b44ffba594

Jump to content

Talk:Mosaic evolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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