444
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: +
clarification request.
:::Certainly looks well sourced now. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Certainly looks well sourced now. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 12:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yea, and I was blocked for it too. I guess there were too many sourced, inconvenient facts. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 12:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Really?! My word. I do howver 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 understqnd it. Can you clarify?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)