25
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 173:
Line 173: + + + + + + + + + +
→Article plan
:* The claims of transitional forms appear to be little more than storytelling, with almost nothing of substance there.
:* The claims of transitional forms appear to be little more than storytelling, with almost nothing of substance there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::1. The quotes are selective. In a sense, of course, all quotes are selective but your quotes give a false impression. I don’t (yet) know about Patterson but, as you are no doubt well aware, Gould never suggested that transitional forms didn’t exist. In the first quote he was making a point in support of his punctuated equilibrium theory (see Creationwiki’s entry on transitional forms). The same can be said of Raup. He never rejected transitional forms. Aren’t you trying to show that there were/are no transitional forms? Can’t you find someone to quote who actually believes that? Having said that, I am happy to rework the sentence. It seems to me, however, that the introduction must acknowledge that the predominant view amongst evolutionary scientists is that transitional forms do exist. Otherwise the quotes will inevitably mislead.
::2. Of course the claims have validity. I understand that you don’t accept them but the bulk of the relevant scientific community do accept them. You are in the minority. And yes, I know that this is not a vote, but unless you have actually serious qualifications in the area (and I don’t count theological qualifications) then surely we must rely on the experts.
::3. Your use of the term “storytelling” is quaint. I do not see it as being in any way helpful. I imagine that you didn’t even realise the irony attaching to a creationist talking about evolutionary theory as storytelling.
::4. I suggest that, given our obvious dislike for the other’s views, we proceed methodically. I have looked at a number of “controversial” pages on the site and I see that many are full of one-sided rhetoric and devoid of serious scientific information. I hope that we can make a sensible compromise here. I am certainly happy to attempt to be as even handed and as fair as possible.
::5. I note the suggestion above in relation to a picture. Would you be amenable to that? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 15:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)