Last modified on 5 April 2007, at 14:12


Return to "Pseudogene" page.

I deleted this entry because: no sourcing and "facts" are asserted but not shown. Conservative 00:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I STRONGLY object to this deletion. This is totally uncalled for. Etaroced 00:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Please bring the article back and I will go through and individually source each claim. Etaroced 00:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That may not be possible. And please do not assert "facts" that are not facts. If I am not mistaken you broke two conservapedia rules in your unsourced article. Conservative 00:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. Etaroced 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Certainly looks well sourced now. --British_cons (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Yea, and I was blocked for it too. I guess there were too many sourced, inconvenient facts. Etaroced 12:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Really?! My word. I do however have a question. You state, "Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the theory of evolution is invalid." I'm afraid that I can't quite grasp this one. I tried to think of some way to make it clearer, but I'm afraid that I can't understand it. Can you clarify?--British_cons (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I have NO idea, that little tid bit was added by one of our more...........peculiar.........sysops. I think its a knee jerk response to inconvenient facts. Its a line that he pastes into articles and then link spams the reference. My main hypothesis is that he is not intelligent enough to write a section that actually addresses the claim, or can not allow himself to actually READ it and THINK about it because it might shake his faith. So he just does a search on the term on AIG and pastes that in the article. Etaroced 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I have noticed a tendency that occurs in articles that "don't toe the line" to dispute/ask for citations for facts not requiring special treatment. This has been of the variety of "the sky is blue? What is your source?" This only seems to happen in article that are disliked by certain sysops. The entire above statement is unsourced as "obvious observation".--PalMDtalk 15:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)