User talk:Authorized User

Edits
Please don't edit science articles and claim widespread doubt where none exists. It's POV-pushing, and not allowed. Adam Cuerden talk 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Haeckel's drawings: Yes, they are somewhat inaccurate, but at that scale, the inaccuracies would be hard to spot. Take it to the talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems
Macroevolution: This is a bit of a short article, because, frankly, it's not really a term all that often used outside of some basic biology classes. But if you check the external links, you'll find this one, which is full of evidence for Macroevolution.

Horse: The horse is convenient as it has a traceable line showing the evolution of the hoof, however, there were several side-branches which are almost always ignored in favour of the one leading to the modern horse. Whether it is right to simplify so much is where the debate lies, largely over some people who took it too far, and made claims based on the single line leading to the modern horse, based on some of the consistant trends in that line, such as size, etc, that don't apply to the more accurate bush. None of those claims are in the article, so there is no debate on it.

Dark matter: The additions of "so-called" before "evidence" really isn't making any case that the evidence is invalid. I'm also somewhat at a loss as to what, exactly, is so worrisome about an astronomical theory to need words to scare people off the evidence. Adam Cuerden talk

Regarding your "proof" section of macroevolution,
 * To this date, scientists have not provided any scientific proof. Scientists say, that you can't observe macro evolution because it happens too quickly for there to be any proof. If you know of any evidence please edit this page and put your evidence in this section.

This is both factually incorrect and is written in a tone which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. To begin with, evolutionary change at a macroevolutionary scale has been observed, inferred, and been duplicated in the lab over 100 years ago. Your statement about scientific proof is also puzzling - the scientific method cannot and does not seek to prove anything. There is no such thing as scientific proof. The second part "scientist say..." just doesn't make sense. Evolutionary change, whatever the scale you use to look at it, generally happens slowly. The third part If you know of any evidence... is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda 05:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Embryo picture
I don't see why not, so long as the image is freely licenced. However, it would help if Adam Cuerden talk 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The embryos are from the same stage(s), preferably (including?) the phylotypic stage. (Also called the Pharyngula)
 * They are presented in the same orientations