Talk:Common descent

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I disagree with the statement that many textbooks use distorted images. This isn't true. Its a CLAIM be wells that is heavily disputed. Tmtoulouse 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh gosh...

Another blatantly false definition. Common descent refers to groups of organisms or clades having common ancestors. Not all organisms have the same common ancestors, although it is possible that a single species arose first, but thats not that likely. Anyway, look it up; Im too tired.Palmd001 22:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


Isn't this better handled on a page about Hackle or recapitulation theory or embryology or something other than common descent?Etaroced 20:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he might deserve an article.--British_cons (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut from article:

However, this statement has been heavily criticized by many scientists who have reviewed his book as being misleading in some cases and false in others. [1] [2]

It doesn't matter how heavily they criticize the statement. Declaring something to be false is irrelevent, except in court decisions. Conservapedia is not a court, but an encyclopedia. If there is evidence that Wells made an error about common descent, it should be in this article. --Ed Poor 10:38, 19 May 2007 (EDT)