1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: + + + + + + +
→My two cents: took out evolution
Ok, that last edit about the common understanding of theory is just wrong, but it IS a matter of opinion, so there is certainly room for disagreement. However, it is OPINION, and should have no place here. That is why I think we should dispense with the examples. There is no need to have our opinions compete here...it's the wrong forum for that.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 18:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, that last edit about the common understanding of theory is just wrong, but it IS a matter of opinion, so there is certainly room for disagreement. However, it is OPINION, and should have no place here. That is why I think we should dispense with the examples. There is no need to have our opinions compete here...it's the wrong forum for that.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 18:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I took out this:
: The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time), which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}
I am not sure what the problem is. Doesn't everyone agree that microevolution is well-confirmed? Hardly anyone claims that the universal common ancestor is a proved fact. Likely hypothesis maybe, but not well-confirmed. When the pro-evolution people say that evolution is a fact, they are talking about microevolution, not the existence of a universal common ancestor.
Where is the opinion? I am just describing definitions as they are used, not how I think the word should be defined. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)