Use of the term "evolution" implies natural selection. Lacking proof, however, evolutionists have redefined the meaning of "evolution" to mean change (in allele frequency). The microevolution explanation here should explain both of those views.--Aschlafly 23:20, 11 February 2007 (EST)
I changed "version" to "form". Feel free to make your own improvement, while recognizing the broad and narrow definitions. --Aschlafly 23:46, 11 February 2007 (EST)
- I'm not sure that helps at all. A) What does "version" or "form" mean? Do you mean not able to interbreed or what? b) To be blunt, I don't think the claim as made here is even made by any major creationists. Do we have any citations for it? JoshuaZ 23:48, 11 February 2007 (EST)
- It also isn't at all clear to me how the sources you gave in this edit support the claims made or indeed have almost anything to do with them. JoshuaZ 01:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)
- Feel free to improve it, while recognizing that people have two different meanings for microevolution: the tradition meaning based on natural selection, and the modern (less meaningful) definition based on a change in the overall gene pool. --Aschlafly 01:39, 12 February 2007 (EST)
- Um, part of the issue here is that I don't think your sources support that claim. (Now, I think that depending on context, microevolution and macroevolution can mean very different things, but the defintions you are using seem to be close to unique to one A. Schlafly). JoshuaZ 01:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)
The paragraph about microevolution dealing with "micro" organisms and macroevolution dealing with "macro" organisms is completely ridiculous and should be removed. --ColinR 23:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that his article is confusing because the definition of microevolution doesn't match the description of bacteria very well. In particular, the discussion of bacteria includes horizontal gene transfer but the preceding text does not. When "bacteria can pass genes for antibiotic resistance between strains and even between species", is that microevolution or not? RSchlafly 14:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
It is not microevolution if the bacteria are passing the antibiotic resistance between each other through lateral transfer (horizontal gene transfer). This transfer by the way is done using plasimids. Now if the mutation occurs within the bacteria's chromosomal DNA outside the influence of the plasmid then it would be considered a form of divergent evolution. This has been shown to occur in the lab by exposing the bacteria to an enviroment of a perticular type of antibiotic.--TimS 15:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
This is wrong
"Microevolution, narrowly defined, is the theory that natural selection can, over time, increase the overall reproductive fitness of a species."
This is completely incorrect. Microevolution is changes to an organism on the micro level through mutations, nothing more, nothing less. Natural selection allows those changes that are positive for a given environment to win out, but has nothing to do with evolution, which is change. In other words natural selection does not involve creating change, but only works with what is there. Microevolution is the act of change. So basically guys, I'm deleting the statement. If anyone disagrees then please let me know. Learn together 17:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
"Resistance genes can also be produced by random mutation"....
Can we have more explanation about how that works? Pandeism 12:34, 14 September 2007 (EDT)