Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + + + +
If there is evidence that Wells made an error about common descent, it should be in this article.
:Yes, he might deserve an article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, he might deserve an article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk: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. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html] [http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm]
[[category: Evolution]]
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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:38, 19 May 2007 (EDT)