4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 200:
Line 200: + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 01:38, September 18, 2008
, 01:38, September 18, 2008→Improper
: Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
: Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said '''MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.''' Above are the links to three articles that "contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article." I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)