User talk:Umunais

Welcome!
Hello, Umunais, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Homology (biology). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

I noticed that you added content in the article, Homology (biology), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Homology
Referencing may need some materials related to Philosophy of Biology and evolutionary biology in particular...I intended to give clarity to the term by bringing the term into its academic understanding apart from it's popular perception. To be precise, terms like Homoplasy, homology are standard working assumptions in the field of evolutionary biology. One refers to the existence of similarities due to common descent, and other the opposite. These are needed to explain the various evolutionary traits from a methodologically naturalist perspective.... if we are to discard Aristotelian assumptions like spontaneous creation, etc.

According to my understanding, there is nothing in the world that tells us there is common ancestry. We take the axiomatic assumption of homology and look and try to verify the same hypothesis by reconfirming the same whether it be evidences related to anatomy, linguistics, genetics, fossils, or anything. I hope i have explained the same to the best of my abilities... Umunais (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * All these ideas sound somewhat reasonable, there is no problem there. The issue is sourcing. Every claim in that article is, as is required by central Wikipedia policies — WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH — fully cited to reliable sources in the literature. Your discussion above is not, and nor were your additions to the article, see the boldface phrases above. I do hope this is clear: sources are absolutely central to the encyclopedia. In a nutshell:


 * Wikipedia consists of short summaries of the key sources on each subject, citing those sources.

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)