Changes

:::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)

:::::Really?! My word.  I do however 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 understand it.  Can you clarify?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)