Talk:Atavism

Source?
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nipples is actually a completely unrelated article which only makes reference to the same things itself, with an outdated reference to another site that no longer exists.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)

Redundant
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)

Isn't it racial?
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)

Atavism or not?
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)

Usage in architecture?
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).

No Chickensaurus?
I noticed my addition of information about the "chickensaurus" was deleted. I sourced it, and while experimental it seems legitimate. Can anybody explain why it was taken out? "Jack Horner is working with a team of geneticists to create a "Chickensaurus", that is, a chicken with atavistic traits normally associated with extinct dinosaurs." Sociotard (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's not notable unless they actually succeed. More importantly, however, I'd reserve atavism for naturally occurring traits, much as we use "twin" or "clone" depending on whether an embryo divided naturally or with assistance.  This is because the mechanisms (neoteny, developmental de/activation) are as important as the results because of what that teaches us, both about organisms themselves and evolutionary mechanisms.  That's not to say that artificially engineered creatures are not informative, but rather they're informative in different ways and for different reasons, thus, IMHO, deserving of a different category. Mokele (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Attempts to use selective breeding to approximate primitive cows were mentioned in the article. (Heck Cattle). I see genetic manipulation as being a related technique to selective breeding, as both change genetic code to make animal that would not have appeared without human intervention.  I suppose that's just me.  Thank you for responding.Sociotard (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion/Review

This is a very interesting article. It was fascinating to learn about such a phenomenon. I understand that there can be a mutation in the DNA sequence which causes for atavism to take place. However is it possible that if a disease takes place in the population that alters the next 3-4 generations, would atavism take place? 65.60.212.124 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Social Darwinism???
This entire section reads like a giant un-sourced non-sequitur. Yes, it has all kinds of links to other Wikipedia articles, but are they meaningful? I would eliminate it. Can anyone legitimize its being there?Dynasteria (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For example this is an accusation against persons unknown and unnamed:


 * "The notion of atavism was used frequently by social Darwinists, who claimed that inferior races displayed atavistic traits, and represented more primitive traits than their own race."

Where does it come from? Is it just urban mythology? Dynasteria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Atavism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/15/opinion/ed-tails15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923231227/http://www.criminology.fsu.edu:80/crimtheory/lombroso.htm to http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/lombroso.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Neurology
There should be some mention of neurological or psychological traits that are (or have been claimed to be) atavistic. For instance, schizophrenia was considered to be such according to Julian Jaynes’ theory of bicameralism. The idea that the way the human brain functions has changed significantly across history would imply that some mental “disorders” are actually just cases of individuals having neurological characteristics more like those that were common in another era. 2604:2D80:6984:4D00:0:0:0:6E4B (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are all the plants?
Only a single example of plant atavism is listed here. All the rest are animals! Can someone add more? Eden the plant nerd (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)