Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 34: Line 34:  
:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
 
::::::::::My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no ''plausible'' explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
 
::::::::::My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no ''plausible'' explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::::::::The difficulty that I was trying to point out is that the evolution of the whale, as it is currently explained by evolutionary scientists, is no more or less plausible than the evolution of any other creature. It cannot, therefore, be an example of deliberate ignorance any more than, for example, a belief in evolution generally is an example of deliberate ignorance.  I don't know if I can express it in clearer terms than that.  --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:57, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
21

edits

Navigation menu