14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: +
Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis (view source)
Revision as of 17:07, June 28, 2011
, 17:07, June 28, 2011no edit summary
::--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Evobabble is not science. Conservapedia doesn't want the adherents of the religion of atheism to put in their atheist origins myth which is evolution. Conservapedia is not a big fan of astrology and evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:58, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Evobabble is not science. Conservapedia doesn't want the adherents of the religion of atheism to put in their atheist origins myth which is evolution. Conservapedia is not a big fan of astrology and evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:58, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)