nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
My reversion of recent changes (2)
This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that it doesn't cite sources. Hang fire until I've reworded that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
== My reversion of recent changes (2) ==
The first edit I reverted this time had the edit comment, "''China Today is noted for "Inquirer"-like sensational stories that cannot be confirmed.''". Show me some evidence of this and I'll agree to the re-removal of that bit.
The second edit had the edit comment, "''Author of the reference claims to be the Paleontologist for the United States "Rational" Museum, which apparently does not exist.''". No, it said the "'''N'''ational" Museum, which is an [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0919950.html alternative or former name] of the Smithsonian Institute, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Gilmore Wikipedia] and other sources confirm that Gilmore was a paleontologist there.
The third edit had the edit comment, "''Information about dragons belongs in an article on dragons.''". Sorry, but the point is that creationists see dragons as being dinosaurs. Thus it belongs here.
The fourth edit had the edit comment, "''Reference indicates that author retracted his claims about dinosaurs.''". Please don't go repeating the same changes without giving new (and valid) reasons for doing so. The same editor made this same deletion with the same basic edit comment before, which I answered above when I reverted it.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)