![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from Precambrian rabbit appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 8,811 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it okay to dedicate pages to other wikipedia editors? If so, then this one is dedicated to user:silly rabbit. For putting up with me, more or less, when I was simply unbearable. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Since it's an anecdote, the exact wording will vary. A not very reliable looking blog ( here) has what's given as a direct quotation from John Maynard Smith with "Cambrian" instead of "Precambrian": "But, as my teacher Haldane pointed out, a single fossil rabbit in Cambrian rocks would falsify evolution." I don't know how one would go about authenticating that. N p holmes ( talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the term suggesting spurious evidence? Is it sarcasm? As a reader, think it needs some definitive description of its function before the intro goes into the ins and outs. Appreciate the effort for the article, so just saying, Julia Rossi ( talk) 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this short article. I thought it was clear and to the point, possibly redundant here and there. I do not agree that this topic is of "low" importance. The argument that evolution is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific is a central argument in the creationist repertoire. I would give this article an higher importance rating. I also would give it a higher quality rating than just "good." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, I think even if a rabbit was really discovered to be Precambrian, the vast majority of biological evolutionists would still believe in biological evolution, and most people will continue believing the rabbit is fake regardless of any evidence. 173.180.214.13 ( talk) 06:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is this considered “irrelevant”? Is there some inability to understand the argument? Ldo ( talk) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Precambrian rabbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from Precambrian rabbit appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 8,811 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it okay to dedicate pages to other wikipedia editors? If so, then this one is dedicated to user:silly rabbit. For putting up with me, more or less, when I was simply unbearable. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Since it's an anecdote, the exact wording will vary. A not very reliable looking blog ( here) has what's given as a direct quotation from John Maynard Smith with "Cambrian" instead of "Precambrian": "But, as my teacher Haldane pointed out, a single fossil rabbit in Cambrian rocks would falsify evolution." I don't know how one would go about authenticating that. N p holmes ( talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the term suggesting spurious evidence? Is it sarcasm? As a reader, think it needs some definitive description of its function before the intro goes into the ins and outs. Appreciate the effort for the article, so just saying, Julia Rossi ( talk) 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading this short article. I thought it was clear and to the point, possibly redundant here and there. I do not agree that this topic is of "low" importance. The argument that evolution is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific is a central argument in the creationist repertoire. I would give this article an higher importance rating. I also would give it a higher quality rating than just "good." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, I think even if a rabbit was really discovered to be Precambrian, the vast majority of biological evolutionists would still believe in biological evolution, and most people will continue believing the rabbit is fake regardless of any evidence. 173.180.214.13 ( talk) 06:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is this considered “irrelevant”? Is there some inability to understand the argument? Ldo ( talk) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Precambrian rabbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)