Content deleted Content added
→Split Missing Link: Not that simple |
|||
Line 74:
:::Although they describe the same phenomena, the term ''missing link'' gives a very different explanation of the phenomena than transitional fossils, i.e., the [[great chain of being]]. This article is supposed to be about scientific ideas, but it contains a section about religious and historical ideas. In my opinion this section does not fit, since it leads in a different direction (religion, pseudoscience, etc.) than the main article. To be expanded, categorized, and placed in context (e.g., [[creationism]]), the section must be split into a separate article. [[Flood geology]] is not a section in the [[geological history]] article because the two topics give very different explanations of the same phenomena. Generally, a separate article is be more effective and less confusing to a general reader because the scientific concept would be explained in the context of the lay concept, rather than explaining the lay concept in the context of the scientific concept. --[[User:Beefyt|beefyt]] ([[User talk:Beefyt|talk]]) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I think you will find that the use of the therm "missing link" is a bit more complex than just being religious and pseudoscientific. I am not dead set against a separate article, but just like an article on evolution should discuss Lamarcism in the history-section, this one should have something on missing links, even the pseudoscientific aspect of it. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||