Talk:Definition of evolution - Revision history

DanH: Talk:Definition of Evolution moved to Talk:Definition of evolution: per CP style change

2008-01-07T07:06:29Z

Talk:Definition of Evolution moved to Talk:Definition of evolution: per CP style change

Conservative: Talk:Definition of evolution moved to Talk:Definition of Evolution

2007-12-30T23:01:05Z

Talk:Definition of evolution moved to Talk:Definition of Evolution

Conservative: Talk:Definitions of evolution moved to Talk:Definition of evolution: search engine optimization

2007-12-30T22:58:47Z

Talk:Definitions of evolution moved to Talk:Definition of evolution: search engine optimization

Wisdom89: /* Source please */

2007-11-30T03:35:08Z

Source please

Feebasfactor: source?

2007-11-29T12:48:12Z

source?

Philip J. Rayment: /* Micro and macroevolution */ Clarification of my question.

2007-11-29T01:44:25Z

Micro and macroevolution: Clarification of my question.

Wisdom89: /* Micro and macroevolution */ comment for philip

2007-11-28T14:45:54Z

Micro and macroevolution: comment for philip

Philip J. Rayment: /* Micro and macroevolution */ crossing Ts and dotting Is, so to speak.

2007-08-29T15:49:55Z

Micro and macroevolution: crossing Ts and dotting Is, so to speak.

Philip J. Rayment: /* Micro and macroevolution */ Great!

2007-08-29T15:46:58Z

Micro and macroevolution: Great!

Philip J. Rayment: /* Micro and macroevolution */ Oops!!

2007-08-29T15:44:22Z

Micro and macroevolution: Oops!! <blush>

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, November 30, 2007
Line 156:		Line 156:

	Does anyone have the relevant source for this statistic? It sounds about right, but with an important statistic like this it’s important to be able to trace it back and see where the number is coming from, as well as how the poll was conducted. [[User:Feebasfactor\|Feebasfactor]] 07:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)		Does anyone have the relevant source for this statistic? It sounds about right, but with an important statistic like this it’s important to be able to trace it back and see where the number is coming from, as well as how the poll was conducted. [[User:Feebasfactor\|Feebasfactor]] 07:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	:This is just my humble guess, but I'd say the statistic is wildly overestimated. I could be wrong though. I haven't found any neutral source to verify this. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 22:35, 29 November 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:48, November 29, 2007
Line 150:		Line 150:
	:::Philip, I noticed your comment regarding your doubt about the information I introduced into the article - just wanted to respond. Microevolution is defined as evolution at a level that is below the species - it does not involve speciation, but shifts in allelic frequencies due to the environment, mutation, or some other event. I have the utmost confidence in this. I'll provide a reference at my earliest convenience as I am about to leave for work. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 09:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)		:::Philip, I noticed your comment regarding your doubt about the information I introduced into the article - just wanted to respond. Microevolution is defined as evolution at a level that is below the species - it does not involve speciation, but shifts in allelic frequencies due to the environment, mutation, or some other event. I have the utmost confidence in this. I'll provide a reference at my earliest convenience as I am about to leave for work. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 09:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)
	:::: What I'm questioning is not whether microevolution is ever defined as evolution below the species level, but whether everybody agrees on that definition. I've been under the impression that many people simply define it rather vaguely as a "small" change as distinct from a "big" change. Also, has anybody actually defined microevolution as being equivalent to a change in gene frequency, or are they simply ''similar'' concepts. If what you are saying is correct, it therefore seems that "evolution", often now defined as a change in gene frequency, is therefore ''defined as'' microevolution, which means that ''macro''evolution is not evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)		:::: What I'm questioning is not whether microevolution is ever defined as evolution below the species level, but whether everybody agrees on that definition. I've been under the impression that many people simply define it rather vaguely as a "small" change as distinct from a "big" change. Also, has anybody actually defined microevolution as being equivalent to a change in gene frequency, or are they simply ''similar'' concepts. If what you are saying is correct, it therefore seems that "evolution", often now defined as a change in gene frequency, is therefore ''defined as'' microevolution, which means that ''macro''evolution is not evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	==Source please==
		+
		+	‘’About 45% of Americans are Young Earth Creationists.’’
		+
		+	Does anyone have the relevant source for this statistic? It sounds about right, but with an important statistic like this it’s important to be able to trace it back and see where the number is coming from, as well as how the poll was conducted. [[User:Feebasfactor\|Feebasfactor]] 07:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, November 29, 2007
Line 149:		Line 149:

	:::Philip, I noticed your comment regarding your doubt about the information I introduced into the article - just wanted to respond. Microevolution is defined as evolution at a level that is below the species - it does not involve speciation, but shifts in allelic frequencies due to the environment, mutation, or some other event. I have the utmost confidence in this. I'll provide a reference at my earliest convenience as I am about to leave for work. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 09:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)		:::Philip, I noticed your comment regarding your doubt about the information I introduced into the article - just wanted to respond. Microevolution is defined as evolution at a level that is below the species - it does not involve speciation, but shifts in allelic frequencies due to the environment, mutation, or some other event. I have the utmost confidence in this. I'll provide a reference at my earliest convenience as I am about to leave for work. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 09:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)
		+	:::: What I'm questioning is not whether microevolution is ever defined as evolution below the species level, but whether everybody agrees on that definition. I've been under the impression that many people simply define it rather vaguely as a "small" change as distinct from a "big" change. Also, has anybody actually defined microevolution as being equivalent to a change in gene frequency, or are they simply ''similar'' concepts. If what you are saying is correct, it therefore seems that "evolution", often now defined as a change in gene frequency, is therefore ''defined as'' microevolution, which means that ''macro''evolution is not evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, November 28, 2007
Line 147:		Line 147:

	:::Great! I wish everyone was as easy to convince! [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)		:::Great! I wish everyone was as easy to convince! [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::Philip, I noticed your comment regarding your doubt about the information I introduced into the article - just wanted to respond. Microevolution is defined as evolution at a level that is below the species - it does not involve speciation, but shifts in allelic frequencies due to the environment, mutation, or some other event. I have the utmost confidence in this. I'll provide a reference at my earliest convenience as I am about to leave for work. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89\|Wisdom89]] 09:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 :* First, although not all that relevant, it is not correct to say that "AiG has the leading creationists".  Most of the leading creationists are not employed by AiG, but by ICR, CMI, or other (sometimes secular) organisations.  AiG does employ a few, and a number of the leading creationists do speak and/or write for AiG, but even so they have no exclusivity to "leading creationists".
 :* Second, the first reference (an article by DeWitt) does refer to macroevolution, but doesn't make a big deal about the distinction.
-:* Third, and most importantly, the second reference was to a book by Jonathan Sarfati and Michael Matthews.  [[Jonathan Sarfati]] works for CMI, not AiG.  But more to the point, they say in that book, "The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and '''neither is it about the size of the change''' [i.e. it's not about micro- versus macro-] ('''so I would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution'''..." (emphasis added).  Also, the article "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" elaborates on this point [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#micro_macro].  In other words, his own source refutes him.
+:* Third, and most importantly, the second reference was to a book by Jonathan Sarfati and Michael Matthews.  [[Jonathan Sarfati]] works for CMI, not AiG.  But more to the point, they say in that book, "The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and '''neither is it about the size of the change''' [i.e. it's not about micro- versus macro-] ('''so I would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution'''..." (emphases and square parenthesis added).  Also, the article "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" elaborates on this point [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#micro_macro].  In other words, his own source refutes him.
 :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:06, January 7, 2008
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:01, December 30, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:58, December 30, 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, August 29, 2007
Line 145:		Line 145:

	:: You're right. [[User:SkipJohnson\|SkipJohnson]] 11:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)		:: You're right. [[User:SkipJohnson\|SkipJohnson]] 11:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::Great! I wish everyone was as easy to convince! [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)