nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + + + +
Talk:Vestigial Structures (view source)
Revision as of 03:09, October 8, 2007
, 03:09, October 8, 2007→Article Move: Not settled
==Article Move==
==Article Move==
Hey, thanks for combining these two articles. That really needed to be done. I noticed that you undid my recent edit in the process and was wondering if you had a problem with it or just did it on accident. The reason I made the change was that the sources cited on that last sentence do not support the statement made. Please see [[talk:Vestigial_structures]] in the section "human appendix" if you have questions about this point as it was actually settled some time ago. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 22:03, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Hey, thanks for combining these two articles. That really needed to be done. I noticed that you undid my recent edit in the process and was wondering if you had a problem with it or just did it on accident. The reason I made the change was that the sources cited on that last sentence do not support the statement made. Please see [[talk:Vestigial_structures]] in the section "human appendix" if you have questions about this point as it was actually settled some time ago. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 22:03, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
:No, it wasn't settled. More accurately, I failed to respond to your last post on the matter. Lack of response is not necessarily the same thing as agreement.
:To provide a brief response to that post, whilst your facts are mostly correct, the weight you give them and the conclusions you draw are your interpretations, not facts themselves. For example, you describe one source as a "popular press magazine", which is correct, but overlooks that it is a ''science'' magazine, mainly written and read by scientists and people with scientific understanding. You say that two quotes are from the magazine writer and a person from South Africa known by name only. Actually, both answers would have been contributed by readers of the magazine, per the normal way that questions in this particular column are answered. But the magazine would not simply print any and all answers it gets; it would select the answers that it considers to be correct. True, still not a formally-peer-reviewed answer, but more substance than the impression that you give.
:Nevertheless, I do think that the additional source that you provided has merit, and I will reinclude it in the article.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:09, 7 October 2007 (EDT)