Content deleted Content added
Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) |
m seperating comments |
||
Line 2,100:
So we don't need to qualify with "known"?
"To generalize this to mean that all life, or all hypothetical life, in the entire ''universe'' is related, is as absurd as generalizing from "every planet the size of Earth we've seen has life" to "every planet the size of Earth has life"." You are contradicting yourself. You say that all modern versions state all life evolves (a generalization) then you state that you cannot generalize that all life is related by common descent. Anyways as I have said before, "known" is more accurate. I guess my fear (or paranoia) is that creationist will grab on to qualifiers: All known organisms on Earth are related by common descent, but the vast majority of living or extinct organisms are uncharacterized and thus may have been created by forces other than evolution. So I agree with being accurate and concise and for that reason the aricle needs to be rewritten to include all the correct nomenclature, add terms left out like parapatric speciation, and remove misleading statements. Candy also has expressed his concerns over the articles present status and I am sure others will sound out after all the present editing effort has subsided. So to be accurate it should state: All known organisms on Earth are ...... Hmmm, You know organisms (organism generally refers to cellular) don't include viruses which evolve and are related by common descent. Actually it would exclude some fungi and other life also the more I think about it. I am glad that the article has been shortened. [[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
At my prior job I heard a visiting scholar, a philosopher, present a lecture on how all life is descended from a common ancestor. The point is, he was speaking as a philosopher of science, i.e making a philosophical proof. I wish I remember his name - at the time the talk bored me because it seemed so obvious to me, but of course he was making a proof not obvious to philosophers. Now, it is possible that his argument was really mor enarrow, that ''if'' one accepts the theory of evolution ''then'' one must also accept the principle of common ancestry. Anyway, my point is that this is something argued not only by empirical scientists but by philosophers and it may be worth acknowledging at some point in the article this fact. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||