Changes

The sources I gave should make clear that AiG sees the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Does anyone not think that they are the leading proponents of creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

The sources I gave should make clear that AiG sees the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Does anyone not think that they are the leading proponents of creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

After I changed the phrase "important to anti-evolutionists" to read "important to ''some'' anti-evolutionists" with the edit comment "''Leading creationists don't worry about this distinction''", SkipJohnson changed it to "important to ''many'' anti-evolutionists", with the edit comment, "''AiG finds very important. AiG has the leading creationists.''"

:I reverted SkipJohnson's edit.  He was inaccurate in the following ways:

:* 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'''..." (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)

I reverted SkipJohnson's edit.  He was inaccurate in the following ways:

:: You're right. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

* 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 evolutionists".

 

* Second, the first reference (an article by DeWitt) does refer to macroevolution, but doesn't make a big deal about the distinction.

:::Great! I wish everyone was as easy to convince!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

* 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.

 

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:41, 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)

:::: 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)

 

 

‘’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)

 

: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)