nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Removed paragraph: "unsigned" and replies.
When the first paper came out the press carried the headlines "Archaeopteryx has bird-like brain" because the orignal study onlyused an alligator, and Allosaurus (a meat-eating dinosaur not very close to birds) and a modern bird. When maniraptoran dinosaurs and other extint birds were examined, it became clear that Archaeopteryx had a brain that is sort of birdlike, but no more so than Velociraptor and it's other close cousins.
When the first paper came out the press carried the headlines "Archaeopteryx has bird-like brain" because the orignal study onlyused an alligator, and Allosaurus (a meat-eating dinosaur not very close to birds) and a modern bird. When maniraptoran dinosaurs and other extint birds were examined, it became clear that Archaeopteryx had a brain that is sort of birdlike, but no more so than Velociraptor and it's other close cousins.
If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.
If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.{{unsigned|Token}}
: Interesting comment about peer review. Do you also feel that so-called "professors" who were not selected based on peer review should not be taken seriously?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
: Interesting comment about peer review. Do you also feel that so-called "professors" who were not selected based on peer review should not be taken seriously?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:(replying to Token):
:*First, thanks for the additional information about the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx'' being done earlier. It does clarify the situation somewhat.
:*However, I still can't see that the text I removed was justified in being there. The abstract of the paper doesn't seem to go as far as the removed content.
:*I did not remove data 'because "it requires payment"'. I removed it because I suspected that it was inaccurate and pending someone demonstrating its accuracy.
:*Your swipe about including "easily-refuted" information was less than helpful, given that you didn't say what information is supposedly "easily refuted".
:(to Aschlafly):
:Andy, there was nothing "liberal" about what you removed and changed in the article. Apart from Hoyle and a few isolated creationists basing their view on Hoyle, essentially nobody believes that the fossils have been faked and essentially everyone accepts that ''Archaeopteryx'' really existed. The only real dispute is over whether it was a true bird or an intermediate form.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 14 October 2007 (EDT)