nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 167:
Line 167: + + + + + +
→Article plan: Further comments
I maintain that your quotations should follow descriptions of transitional forms because that is what the article is supposed to be explaining. What are your thoughts? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 01:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I maintain that your quotations should follow descriptions of transitional forms because that is what the article is supposed to be explaining. What are your thoughts? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 01:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: My last edit was one that I had started before you posted this, so I completed it rather than having it hang in limbo. I'll have a look at what you've changed further and come back here to comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: My last edit was one that I had started before you posted this, so I completed it rather than having it hang in limbo. I'll have a look at what you've changed further and come back here to comment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: Okay, I've now looked, and here are my comments:
:* The "Claims of a lack of transitional forms" again has an objectionable introduction. The quotes are not "selective" if that is the true state of things, so the use of the word "selective" is unsubstantiated. Also, it seems odd to introduce a section quoting evolutionists by saying that ''creationists'' believe it! Yes, creationists do believe it, but so did the quoted evolutionists!
:* I might go along with your preferred order of the two sections we've both swapped, but putting the claims first might give the false impression that the claims have some validity.
:* The claims of transitional forms appear to be little more than storytelling, with almost nothing of substance there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)