Talk:Pseudogene

I deleted this entry because: no sourcing and "facts" are asserted but not shown. Conservative 00:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I STRONGLY object to this deletion. This is totally uncalled for. Etaroced 00:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Please bring the article back and I will go through and individually source each claim. Etaroced 00:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That may not be possible. And please do not assert "facts" that are not facts. If I am not mistaken you broke two conservapedia rules in your unsourced article. Conservative 00:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. Etaroced 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Certainly looks well sourced now. --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. Etaroced 12:12, 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?--British_cons (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I have NO idea, that little tid bit was added by one of our more...........peculiar.........sysops. I think its a knee jerk response to inconvenient facts. Its a line that he pastes into articles and then link spams the reference. My main hypothesis is that he is not intelligent enough to write a section that actually addresses the claim, or can not allow himself to actually READ it and THINK about it because it might shake his faith. So he just does a search on the term on AIG and pastes that in the article. Etaroced 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)