Difference between revisions of "Talk:Universal common ancestry"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
PhilMcAvity (talk | contribs) (mmmm?) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
''Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, based on their belief that the scientific evidence makes universal common ancestry appear highly improbable or impossible.'' Some sourced examples of this ''scientific evidence'' would improve the article. | ''Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, based on their belief that the scientific evidence makes universal common ancestry appear highly improbable or impossible.'' Some sourced examples of this ''scientific evidence'' would improve the article. | ||
| + | : on the way. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | ''Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea'' Did ''pagans'' really believe ''that '''all life''' on Earth is related via a single family tree'' from a common ancestor? | + | ''Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea'' Did ''pagans'' really believe ''that '''all life''' on Earth is related via a single family tree'' from a common ancestor? |
| + | :: the article doesn't say they did -- only CD with animals. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
The ''cars'' argument about ''common design characteristics'' makes creationists look silly. Life forms (species) reproduce themselves. Makes of car don't. | The ''cars'' argument about ''common design characteristics'' makes creationists look silly. Life forms (species) reproduce themselves. Makes of car don't. | ||
| + | : that doesn't affect the argument. The argument is "similarity does not imply common descent any more than common design." cars show that to be true. Just because things reproduce doesn't mean they're related either. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 06:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 06:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:35, September 19, 2007
Removed from intro:
- The idea is that every species has descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Where is this supported or even amplified later on in the article? --Ed Poor Talk 12:49, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
- Hmm ... not sure what you mean ... do you mean that the article doesn't provide any support for the proposition that universal common ancestry means that all life descended from a common ancestor? Ungtss 13:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, based on their belief that the scientific evidence makes universal common ancestry appear highly improbable or impossible. Some sourced examples of this scientific evidence would improve the article.
- on the way. Ungtss 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea Did pagans really believe that all life on Earth is related via a single family tree from a common ancestor?
- the article doesn't say they did -- only CD with animals. Ungtss 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
The cars argument about common design characteristics makes creationists look silly. Life forms (species) reproduce themselves. Makes of car don't.
- that doesn't affect the argument. The argument is "similarity does not imply common descent any more than common design." cars show that to be true. Just because things reproduce doesn't mean they're related either. Ungtss 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
PhilMcAvity 06:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)