16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: +
no edit summary
:The article has been improve significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)