Talk:Atavism

Elements of this page appear to have been taken verbatim from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html. At the very least, shouldn't this be properly referenced, or removed if copywritten? Beefcalf 22:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Copywritten ? I think the word is "right", not "write" lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.59.93 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Referenced and removed. --Kjoonlee 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the first reference used for humans with canine teeth and multiple nipples is actually a completely unrelated article which only makes reference to the same things itself, with an outdated reference to another site that no longer exists. Should everything relating to that just be removed? 71.202.151.123 (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

--- Is this source really reliable? It appears to be unattributed and links to domain homepages, not actual articles of any substance in its own sources: http://universe-review.ca/F10-multicell.htm "Multi-cell Organisms". Universe-review.ca. Retrieved 2011-09-29. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.168.141 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In the examples, it mentions hind legs in dolphins and hind legs in whales. That's redundant. All dolphins are whales. 129.237.90.54 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of whale or dolphin. Also, popular usage distinguishes the two.. --Kjoonlee 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note also that it mentions hind limbs on dolphins, not hind legs. The word limb is sometimes used to describe the arms and tentacles of squid, for example, so it can mean more than just arms/legs. Here it is used for hind flippers. Not legs. --Kjoonlee 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, it's confusing whether 'leg' or 'flipper' is meant. Changed accordingly.Classicalclarinet 05:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The term 'throwback' is commonly used to describe an incident in which someone who has two parents of one racial identity and yet possesses another, normally due to a genetic malfunction, causing a redundant gene from a long- gone ancestor to crop up again. Could someone please inform me if it's simply that the wrong term has been applied in the cases where I've heard it.

82.14.64.128 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't call it a malfunction. I don't see blue eyes suddenly emerging in a family a malfunction. Nobody says anything of a family of blondes with a brunette kid.

Sudden emergence of blue eyes (or blonde hair) would be unremarkable. But blondes only have blonde genes, so if a family of blondes gave birth to a brunette, then either the brunette kid is a mutant, or the father isn't who he thinks he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardog (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the atavism stuff doesn't sit right with me. The cetaceans would be atavism if suddenly after a few generations flippers appeared and even then it doesn't work except in the first few flipper pioneers. Nobody considered the side show atavans. Lobster Boy and Seal Boy weren't recapturing crustacean or fish ancestory, they were just deformed. Flippers in the mammal family tree had been out of the picture since pretty far in their classification. The flipper in cetaceans evolved slowly, limbs becoming shorter and webbed and all that jazz until you came across what resembles the modern cetaceans. The horses born with those spare toes, and the babies with tails are great examples, the cetaceans not unless somebody has got a dolphin with legs. A bird with teeth or a snake with legs or a shelless turtle, or maybe somebody with hand like feet and fur would be great.

I'm not sure you understand. Whales with legs have been found (legs are not usually seen on whales, but ancestors of whales surely had them) and dolphins with rear flippers have been found (dolphins usually only have two flippers, not four, but ancestors of dolphins surely had four visible limbs, not two). --Kjoonlee 07:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the article had been changed for the worse. I've fixed it now. --Kjoonlee 07:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think color blindness in humans seems like a confused example of atavism. If atavism is the return of a trait, then colour blindness surely doesn't count, because it is better viewed as the absence of a trait, namely, of color vision. This is an instance of loss, whereas the concept of atavism seems to be centred around the idea of regaining some trait that was previously present in a lineage. Poorpooreyes (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The two paragraphs at the beginning of the "atavism" section are unacceptable as written. They imply that the idea of atavism is accepted in modern scientific discourse. Either that is false, in which case they should be removed, or it is true, in which case it needs to be properly discussed, defended and documented. I think it's false; I also think this material was inserted as an underhanded way of slipping an essentially racist discourse into the present article. At the very least, this line of thinking should be clearly associated with its source in Hayek so that it will be clearly understood as distinct from the mainstream. I have therefore removed them.Poihths (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. I can’t believe that stayed up for so long. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

When a new material begins to replace an older one. Say a concrete lintel for the previous wooden one, people often hide this change by disguising the newer with features from the older, putting knotholes in the concrete to make it appear like a wooden lintel. Is this the proper term for this backward looking copying? rmwilliamsjr —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

A really interesting topic, but full of uncited material. Some of the claims have been made by WP:RS's and need to be tracked down. Others are wp:OR and need to go. DavidOaks (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put i a general source that should really cover the whole field (Held, 2009). Removing the "refimprove", Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)