nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→"similar species": However...
The term "similar species" previously used in a heading of this article is misleading. The reference cited is a phylogenetic studies and the methods employed in these studies are <i>not</i> about similarity. I know people have trouble with the E-word but claiming these studies are about similarity is just outright wrong. Hence my edit
The term "similar species" previously used in a heading of this article is misleading. The reference cited is a phylogenetic studies and the methods employed in these studies are <i>not</i> about similarity. I know people have trouble with the E-word but claiming these studies are about similarity is just outright wrong. Hence my edit
--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 22:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
: The effect is to make out that evolution is true (it's not the ''word'' that is the problem, but ''claiming the concept as true''). On what basis are they considered to be ''related'' if not on ''similarity''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 25 March 2008 (EDT)