![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"...In addition, later experiments would appear to support Kettlewell's conclusions...."
Wikipedia seems to be completely one sided for an "objective encylopedia" and, more damaging. inaccurate!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.150.130 ( talk) 16:06, July 5, 2004 (UTC)
Then fix it. Bertus 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Speaking on these terms, the article doesn't seem very impartial at all. Dickvalentine 11:03 PST, 30th Jul. 2006
I tagged this article because it is a long long way from NPOV. I've read this book as a confirmed believer in evolution. It is not the book described here. -- Richard Clegg 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"...In addition, later experiments would appear to support Kettlewell's conclusions...."
Wikipedia seems to be completely one sided for an "objective encylopedia" and, more damaging. inaccurate!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.150.130 ( talk) 16:06, July 5, 2004 (UTC)
Then fix it. Bertus 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Speaking on these terms, the article doesn't seem very impartial at all. Dickvalentine 11:03 PST, 30th Jul. 2006
I tagged this article because it is a long long way from NPOV. I've read this book as a confirmed believer in evolution. It is not the book described here. -- Richard Clegg 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)