Difference between revisions of "Talk:Common descent"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
British cons (talk | contribs) (→Hackle) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Isn't this better handled on a page about Hackle or recapitulation theory or embryology or something other than common descent?[[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 20:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT) | Isn't this better handled on a page about Hackle or recapitulation theory or embryology or something other than common descent?[[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 20:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Yes, he might deserve an article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:36, April 5, 2007
I disagree with the statement that many textbooks use distorted images. This isn't true. Its a CLAIM be wells that is heavily disputed. Tmtoulouse 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh gosh...
Another blatantly false definition. Common descent refers to groups of organisms or clades having common ancestors. Not all organisms have the same common ancestors, although it is possible that a single species arose first, but thats not that likely. Anyway, look it up; Im too tired.Palmd001 22:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Hackle
Isn't this better handled on a page about Hackle or recapitulation theory or embryology or something other than common descent?Etaroced 20:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, he might deserve an article.--British_cons (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)