nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 119:
Line 119: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
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
::: 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)
::: 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)