nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 119:
Line 119: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→ProX' edits: new section
It has been 2.5 weeks since this page was locked. Will it ever be unlocked so that further editing can be done? Right now its current state does not provide enough information to make it usable by students.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It has been 2.5 weeks since this page was locked. Will it ever be unlocked so that further editing can be done? Right now its current state does not provide enough information to make it usable by students.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
== ProX' edits ==
I reverted ProX' edits, and he reverted them back, so before reverting them again, I'm going to explain in greater detail than my previous edit comment why.
* "'''Macroevolution''' is a term used by [[Creationists]]": True, but (a) it's also used by evolutionists (who coined the term) and (b) is also deliberately ''not used'' by leading creationists. So this statement is misleading.
* "However, scientists do not make this distinction...": As just mentioned, evolutionists ''do'' (or at least ''have'') used these terms. Also, this phrase falsely implies that scientists and creationists are two mutually-exclusive groups.
* "...the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. [[common descent]]) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.": That is opinion masquerading as fact.
* "Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the on as the "''fact'' of evolution".": Apart from the grammatical error, they do refer to it as "fact", but this is because of their ideology, not overwhelming evidence.
* "Creationists accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution")...": Actually, leading creationists ''reject'' "evolutionary" change. That is, change that is ''observed'' is not "evolutionary", in the sense that such changes can lead to the evolutionary "family tree".
* "...but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").": On the contrary, leading creationists accept the existence of speciation.
The new "Methods of Macroevolution" may not be similarly faulty, but the title presumes the existence of what the rest of the article now argues is a fallacy! I think that this section would be better off in a different article (although at the moment I'm not sure which one).
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)