nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 43:
Line 43: − + Line 86:
Line 86: − + Line 93:
Line 93: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Definition of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 07:06, January 7, 2008
, 07:06, January 7, 2008Talk:Definition of Evolution moved to Talk:Definition of evolution: per CP style change
:Phil, {{remove personal remark|that question reveals a level of ignorance so profound that}} I'm not sure where to start. The kingdoms of Animalia an Plantae branched off very far in the past, far enough that, while we share enough DNA to show that we both originated from common ancestors on Earth, evolution as separated us enough that we not only are separate species, but actually in separated kingdoms.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, {{remove personal remark|that question reveals a level of ignorance so profound that}} I'm not sure where to start. The kingdoms of Animalia an Plantae branched off very far in the past, far enough that, while we share enough DNA to show that we both originated from common ancestors on Earth, evolution as separated us enough that we not only are separate species, but actually in separated kingdoms.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::{{remove personal remark|You confuse disagreement for ignorance.}} You are not telling me something that I've never heard, but something that I disagree with; I don't agree that we split at all (i.e. I reject evolution). However, that is not the point. I was not talking about where we came from, but how we are classified, and pointing out that there can be more than way to classify things. Do we classify according to percentage similarities of DNA, according to the existence or otherwise of a soul, or according to any number of other possible ways of classifying? And even that question is a bit pointless because you are not limited to classifying things according to only one classification system. That is, you could classify according to similarity of DNA '''and'' according to the existence of a soul. So you could then say that we are animals according to classification system A but not according to classification system B. It's a bit like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet. Whether or not it's a planet depends on which classification system you are using, and astronomers recently decided to change which classification system they used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::You confuse disagreement for ignorance. You are not telling me something that I've never heard, but something that I disagree with; I don't agree that we split at all (i.e. I reject evolution). However, that is not the point. I was not talking about where we came from, but how we are classified, and pointing out that there can be more than way to classify things. Do we classify according to percentage similarities of DNA, according to the existence or otherwise of a soul, or according to any number of other possible ways of classifying? And even that question is a bit pointless because you are not limited to classifying things according to only one classification system. That is, you could classify according to similarity of DNA '''and'' according to the existence of a soul. So you could then say that we are animals according to classification system A but not according to classification system B. It's a bit like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet. Whether or not it's a planet depends on which classification system you are using, and astronomers recently decided to change which classification system they used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
== That particular definition ==
== That particular definition ==
:::It will immediately be reverted for having a liberal bias. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It will immediately be reverted for having a liberal bias. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't be so pessimistic. I won't let anyone revert an article on a false basis. Anyway, this article is specifically about the different definitions.
{{remove personal remark|Don't be so pessimistic.}} I won't let anyone revert an article on a false basis. Anyway, this article is specifically about the different definitions.
Please add the Liberal definition. And add the Scientific definition, Conservative definition, Old Earth, Young Earth, Intelligent Design, Roman Catholic and any other definition you can find. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Please add the Liberal definition. And add the Scientific definition, Conservative definition, Old Earth, Young Earth, Intelligent Design, Roman Catholic and any other definition you can find. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I blotted out a few remarks which seemed to be more about personalities than about the topic at hand. I hope no one minds. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I blotted out a few remarks which seemed to be more about personalities than about the topic at hand. I hope no one minds. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I reverted mine, because it was not insulting and it was appropriate. If you want to spend time doing this, Ed, I could point you to plenty of others, such as on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Is_the_Bible_Inerrant%3f Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?] page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I didn't regard your remark as insulting, and I made it as easy as possible to unhide it. That's why I used a template: so it shows up when you are in edit mode. (Actually, your remark was the mildest of them all - as well as being entirely on point. I guess I just wanted to try out my new template. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
== My cleanup is finished ==
I've extensively rewritten much of the article, and that's about all I can do for now. The '''Use of different definitions''' section could still do with a cleanup, and some other parts could do with more in them. Two specific suggestions are:
* The '''Development of life''' section could mention that this is the popular view, and supporting citations might be polls where the questions about evolution were consistent with this definition.
* The '''Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion''' section could do with some more work. I've reincorporated most of the section that RSchlafly wanted back in, but not quite all of it. Perhaps some quotes from evolutionists on what evolution means to them could go in here, along with some references claiming that evolution is nothing more than a dispassionate scientific theory.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
== Increasing genetic information ==
Isn't that the creationist definition of '''macro'''evolution? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:See the second-last dot-point on [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/ this page], although read the start of the page to put it in context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
==Hominids vs apes==
My recent edit, a single word change, was reverted, and I'm not clear as to why. The article currently reads that humans evolved from ancient apes. This is a misleading statement. My phrasing was that humans evolved from ancient hominids. Of course, humans, hominids, as well as gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans are all "apes", but no biologist suggests that modern humans evolved directly from other extant groups of apes, but that we descend from the now extinct hominid branch. RSchlafly, can you give a compelling reason why the edit was reverted? [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, I reverted simply because because the reference was to a CNN article that used the term "ancient apes", not hominids. I realize that some people say that it is confusing to say that humans evolved from apes, because someone might interpret that as modern apes. But the article says "ancient apes", so I don't think that there is any confusion.
: Meanwhile, the term [[hominid]] is confusing, and I started a page to define. Perhaps you could help there, as it currently says that the dictionary definition is incorrect. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::If that were the intent of the quote, then I would agree with you, but the part that mentions "ancient apes" is from the writer of the article, not the person who says "we have fossil evidence for evolution, it's a fact." Yet, the article says that the former is presented in context of the latter, which isn't the case. It's not necessary to quote the writer of the article here because it's not a first-person piece of evidence, and moreover the writer is using the term incorrectly. Also, I'm wondering why we have this reference at all, since it's referring the the 1999 Kansas school board removing evolution from the standards. Since 1999 that policy has been reversed, and a new controversial policy was put in place and reversed. The reference is basically defunct from the question of current events, and if you want to lend some scientific credibility to the article, then a journal paper or textbook would be far more appropriate. I'm removing the quotation marks and changing ape back to hominid since it is the correct term. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You took a statement that is correct, clear, unambiguous, and grounded in a neutral source, and replaced it with one that is inaccurate and confusing. Creationists deny that humans descended from ancient apes, but not that they descended from ancient hominids. The ancient apes belonged to a different species from modern humans; the same is not necessarily true about hominids. It appears that you subscribe to the idea that the word hominid is just another word for an ape, but if that is true, then why make the change? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: Of course creationists deny we descend from ancient hominids. "Lucy is a chimp" and "Neanderthal is just a regular human with rickets" have been creationist canards for quite a while. Creationists believe that humanity was created in its present form, and did not evolve from a predecessor species. Ancient hominids are not the same species as modern humans. Naturally, ape and hominid don't mean the same thing. Hominids are a subset of apes. But the point is that no biologist believes that we evolved from Gorillas, Chimpanzees, or Orangutans, but from other hominids (Australopithencines, etc).[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:26, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Show me where any creationist has denied that humans descended from ancient hominids. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm siding with RSchlafly on this one, although I'm not 100% happy with that section of the article even without JohnSmith's changes. But to answer a number of points that were raised:
* I agree that the wording "ancient apes" ''could'' be misleading, but I also take RSchlafly's point that it does say "''ancient'' apes", which should be enough qualification. Incidentally, I've heard it said that although evolutionists believe that both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, that hypothetical ancestor, if found, would probably be described as an ape anyway!
* Saying that the quote from the teacher is in the context of the other statement by the author of the article ''may'' be true, but is a bit of a stretch, so perhaps is not safe to go with.
* I don't see the problem with referring to the 1999 Kansas issue. It is simply using that as evidence of how the term "evolution" is used.
* RSchlafly is essentially correct about creationists accepting that humans "descended" from hominids. I say "essentially" because it's unclear exactly what that word means. The definitions that I've found refer to it being humans and their immediate human-like ancestors. This would tend to suggest that it excludes anything that creationists would consider to be other than human, but on the other hand, evolutionists might lump into this category things that creationists would not consider human. In summary, I think that the word is simply too ambiguous to safely use in this context, so should be avoided.
* It should also be noted that (a) creationists accept that speciation occurs (so JohnSmith's edits were misleading at best, and wrong at worst), and (b) "species" is a man-made definition which is actually based on interfertility, which is generally impossible to define for fossils anyway, so claims of different "species" of fossil humans is somewhat problematic.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
== Micro and macroevolution ==
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)
:: 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)
:::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)
==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)
: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)