Talk:Human evolution

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karajou (talk | contribs) at 18:23, June 5, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

I'm not sure evolution of man has been "thoroughly disproven". I'm not saying it is true, I'm saying the page is inacurate. Perhaps a re-write? User:AddisonDM 28 December 2008

"Thoroughly disproven" is perfectly accurate. See Counterexamples to Evolution for a very brief list. - Rod Weathers 20:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That is a good list. Okay. User:AddisonDM 29 December 2008

This page is useless and looks silly, at two sentences long. Do any real (not Rod Weathers) editors here want it?? AddisonDM 11:46, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

I'll take a stab at it. I have seen both sides of the aguments, and took an evolutionary biology course in college, but the evidence isn't there. So I will try and write this page from the evolutionary stand point, but fixing what needs to be fixed to keep in in line with the truth. --BrandonB 14:17, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Or not, as my factual edits have been reverted and the page locked. I'll find some other articles that I can edit, or maybe create some from the wanted pages list. --BrandonB 14:19, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
I was working on it as well, but from the standpoint of creation. If evolution is to be put in, it must be reduced to a theory; arguments countering this theory, as well as contradictions made by the Scientific method will be placed. Is that what you wanted to do, because if so, I will unlock it immediately. The neanderthals (as well as the australopithicines which will be added later) have to stay in do to their own placement in evo-books. Karajou 14:23, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Return to "Human evolution" page.