Changes

Cut from end:

Cut from end:

:Mainstream textbooks treat this as established science,<ref>''Zinsser Microbiology,'' 1968, pp. 163-167, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Library of Congress 68-8386</ref> and supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution often cite it as an example of rapid evolution.<ref name=fda/> Creationists dispute this interpretation.{{fact}} Some acknowledge the general correctness of the traditional explanation but argue that it is not analogous to speciation in higher organisms and has no relevance to the evolution of macroorganisms.  

:Mainstream textbooks treat this as established science,<ref>''Zinsser Microbiology,'' 1968, pp. 163-167, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Library of Congress 68-8386</ref> and supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution often cite it as an example of rapid evolution.<ref name=fda/> Creationists dispute this interpretation.  Some acknowledge the general correctness of the traditional explanation but argue that it is not analogous to speciation in higher organisms and has no relevance to the evolution of macroorganisms.  

Let's not have mini-debates all over the project. If we are to present the [[Origins debate]] at all, let's do it in an organized way. Let's lay out the case for each side. I can think of at least two (and maybe four) different ideas about the origin of species. Let's be intellectually honest, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's not have mini-debates all over the project. If we are to present the [[Origins debate]] at all, let's do it in an organized way. Let's lay out the case for each side. I can think of at least two (and maybe four) different ideas about the origin of species. Let's be intellectually honest, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)