nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 114:
Line 114: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Human appendix: Sources and bias
::::::::::::Ok, surprise, I wasn't able to view even an abstract of any relevant peer-reviewed paper having to do with the human appendix in any of the sources you cited. However, I did come across this little snippet from the glover page: "The appendix '''would appear''' to have a role (although not as the sole organ) in establishing and maintaining the bowel-blood barrier for such bacteria in its area." (my emphasis) How can you make such a definitive statement when the source you cite from doesn't even do so? The other two sources make quite definitive statements, true, but the best source between them is a popular press magazine article. I think it might be time to find new sources or give up on this one. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 02:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Ok, surprise, I wasn't able to view even an abstract of any relevant peer-reviewed paper having to do with the human appendix in any of the sources you cited. However, I did come across this little snippet from the glover page: "The appendix '''would appear''' to have a role (although not as the sole organ) in establishing and maintaining the bowel-blood barrier for such bacteria in its area." (my emphasis) How can you make such a definitive statement when the source you cite from doesn't even do so? The other two sources make quite definitive statements, true, but the best source between them is a popular press magazine article. I think it might be time to find new sources or give up on this one. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 02:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
(unindenting) The sources that I was suggesting that you weren't trusting because they are creationist are the ones that you ''can'' read. They are quoting others which you apparently can't read, but those others are not creationist. My suggestion was that you aren't prepared to trust the creationists ones that you ''can'' read, because they are creationist.
You say that the New England Medical Journal is not biased, yet you defend it for not publishing ID papers. I say that refusal to publish ID papers—or refusal to consider such scientific—''is'' bias. I rebutted your reasons for claiming that ID was not science, and you didn't refute my rebuttal, but merely repeated your assertion. Repeating an assertion without substantiating it is not a convincing argument.
I agree that we should be better than Wikipedia, which is why we try and give coverage to both evolution ''and'' creation. But that doesn't mean that every last detail needs to be qualified. The point with creation and evolution is that they are explanations for the past, not observations in the present. Functions of the appendix are observations in the present, so there is not the same inherent uncertainty.
That some sources claim a function is not contradicted by others that are not aware of one ''is'' the point, because the net result is that there is a known function or functions. And that was not from a single source.
Yes, I agree that Warwick Glover's paper doesn't say it so definitively, which is why I added those other references. Warwick Glover's paper is somewhat older than the more definitive ones, so again, its uncertainty is no contradiction to later sources which have certainty.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 1 June 2007 (EDT)