Difference between revisions of "Talk:Microevolution"
From Conservapedia
(reply) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:: 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. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:39, 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. --[[User:Aschlafly|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). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:41, 12 February 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 06:41, February 12, 2007
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)
