Changes

:::::::::::: Well, it's more of a case of saying is it more likely that sea cows where created more or less as they are with exactly bones in their limbs as elephants, only creatly reduced in size and used for a completely different purpose, or could they be descended from a creature that already had these limb bones and in one lineage they've been retooled for swimming and in the other for holding a massive animal. It's even more ridiculous for the  cited paper which is talking about retroposons - selfish DNA elements that also support a tree like structure. If you and your sister have a selfish gene inserted in the same location of the genome would you say it was more likely that you inherited from one of your parents or you both got it ''de novo''? That's before we even start talking about methadological naturalism. This page shouldn't be a debate about universal common descent, a scientific fact that any theory of evolution needs to explain, I can see that this really is a waste of time. The admins here are so wedded to their views that there is no way reasoned debate will change them.--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 18:43, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Well, it's more of a case of saying is it more likely that sea cows where created more or less as they are with exactly bones in their limbs as elephants, only creatly reduced in size and used for a completely different purpose, or could they be descended from a creature that already had these limb bones and in one lineage they've been retooled for swimming and in the other for holding a massive animal. It's even more ridiculous for the  cited paper which is talking about retroposons - selfish DNA elements that also support a tree like structure. If you and your sister have a selfish gene inserted in the same location of the genome would you say it was more likely that you inherited from one of your parents or you both got it ''de novo''? That's before we even start talking about methadological naturalism. This page shouldn't be a debate about universal common descent, a scientific fact that any theory of evolution needs to explain, I can see that this really is a waste of time. The admins here are so wedded to their views that there is no way reasoned debate will change them.--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 18:43, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: So instead of proposing better wording, you instead go off on a tangent and launch an attack on the view that you disagree with.  Further, you criticise the admins here for supposedly being unwilling to change their views, when I'd be quite certain that ''you'' are just as unwilling to change ''your'' views.  As you are unwilling to discuss the issue further, and have not proposed better neutral wording, I'll revert your pro-evolution wording back to the more neutral wording that was there before.  And by the way, universal common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a ''fact'' that needs explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: So instead of proposing better wording, you instead go off on a tangent and launch an attack on the view that you disagree with.  Further, you criticise the admins here for supposedly being unwilling to change their views, when I'd be quite certain that ''you'' are just as unwilling to change ''your'' views.  As you are unwilling to discuss the issue further, and have not proposed better neutral wording, I'll revert your pro-evolution wording back to the more neutral wording that was there before.  And by the way, universal common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a ''fact'' that needs explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)