![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article is mostly a collection of meaningless sentences such as "Recurrent evolution is the noise that is evolution." I would like to see it erased. Dan Graur (uncited comment made on 16:43, 18 December 2013 by User:Dogrt)
Good lord, could you people please look at the literature instead of relying on your gut? The "proposed merger" discussion below seems to be based on arbitrary opinions about what "recurrent" means. In the actual literature of evolution, the terms "repeated evolution" and "recurrent evolution" are often used in a general way, e.g., the Gompel, et al. article that is already cited here uses both "repeated" and "recurrent." In a recent article Bernd and Snel write "Some of the most striking convergent and parallel (collectively recurrent) amino acid substitutions in proteins are adaptive, but there are also many that are selectively neutral." In an ideal world, IMHO, we would have one article on recurrent (repeated) evolution and it would cover convergence and parallelism. However, that would be a heavy lift at this point. I suggest instead to make the present article an entry point to the articles on parallel and convergent evolution, after explaining briefly that there have been disagreements (about how precisely to define parallel vs. convergent), and that "recurrent" and "repeated" evolution are often used as generic terms. Dabs ( talk) 18:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Recurrent evolution has a few useful sentences and examples but, as Dan Graur pointed out, it is largely unstructured and it is not clear how it differs from convergent evolution. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 02:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article is mostly a collection of meaningless sentences such as "Recurrent evolution is the noise that is evolution." I would like to see it erased. Dan Graur (uncited comment made on 16:43, 18 December 2013 by User:Dogrt)
Good lord, could you people please look at the literature instead of relying on your gut? The "proposed merger" discussion below seems to be based on arbitrary opinions about what "recurrent" means. In the actual literature of evolution, the terms "repeated evolution" and "recurrent evolution" are often used in a general way, e.g., the Gompel, et al. article that is already cited here uses both "repeated" and "recurrent." In a recent article Bernd and Snel write "Some of the most striking convergent and parallel (collectively recurrent) amino acid substitutions in proteins are adaptive, but there are also many that are selectively neutral." In an ideal world, IMHO, we would have one article on recurrent (repeated) evolution and it would cover convergence and parallelism. However, that would be a heavy lift at this point. I suggest instead to make the present article an entry point to the articles on parallel and convergent evolution, after explaining briefly that there have been disagreements (about how precisely to define parallel vs. convergent), and that "recurrent" and "repeated" evolution are often used as generic terms. Dabs ( talk) 18:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Recurrent evolution has a few useful sentences and examples but, as Dan Graur pointed out, it is largely unstructured and it is not clear how it differs from convergent evolution. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 02:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)