Revision as of 20:42, 29 May 2012 edit Petter Bøckman (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,728 edits →Split Missing Link: Not that simple ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:51, 29 May 2012 edit undo Beefyt (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,704 edits →Split Missing Link Next edit →
Line 76: ::::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) :::::Yes I expected so; I'm not very familiar with the concept other its occurrence in mainstream media. I agree that this article should discuss "missing link". Ideally I'd to keep 1-2 paragraphs here and add a hatnote to the main article. --[[User:Beefyt\|beefyt]] ([[User talk:Beefyt\|talk]]) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Transitional fossil: Difference between revisions