nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 203:
Line 203: + +
→Article plan: My latest edits
::: Regarding the picture, I don't know if that one is available (or copyrighted), but I've no objection as long as it's not presented as being correct.
::: Regarding the picture, I don't know if that one is available (or copyrighted), but I've no objection as long as it's not presented as being correct.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 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)