25
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 205:
Line 205: + +
→Article plan
Lacking any further discussion here and having now read the ''New Scientist'' article quoted herein, I've altered the "fishbian" example to show that the claim is not supported by the evidence, and to remove the other claims. I've also added a section about the problem of identification. This is, as much as anything, the problem with the examples that I removed. They amount to identifying fossils that have ''some characteristics'' in common with two other groups, but the claims gloss over the differences and in no way are the examples unambiguously transitional. The pinniped one, for example, identified a pinniped which had some features not found in other pinnipeds, as one might expect if evolution was true. But the claim that it was intermediate between pinnipeds and bears was a huge leap. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Lacking any further discussion here and having now read the ''New Scientist'' article quoted herein, I've altered the "fishbian" example to show that the claim is not supported by the evidence, and to remove the other claims. I've also added a section about the problem of identification. This is, as much as anything, the problem with the examples that I removed. They amount to identifying fossils that have ''some characteristics'' in common with two other groups, but the claims gloss over the differences and in no way are the examples unambiguously transitional. The pinniped one, for example, identified a pinniped which had some features not found in other pinnipeds, as one might expect if evolution was true. But the claim that it was intermediate between pinnipeds and bears was a huge leap. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 8 March 2008 (EST)
: I apologise for my recent absence. I'm back now and I see that whilst I wa away you have done your best to push your own agenda in the article. Very disappointing. I was hoping to co-operate on an article that was even-handed and represented both views clearly and without misleading readers. You appear to be able to talk the talk (on the talk page) but you are incapable of walking the walk (in the article). --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:30, 13 March 2008 (EDT)