Difference between revisions of "Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis"
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Falsifiability) |
(→Falsifiability) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I essentially performed a massive surgery on this page. The original was good, but I felt that it needed an academic face-lift. I'm also a little more knowledgeable on this subject than the first author, though they did do a superb job for someone that (I'm assuming) lacked advanced training in biology. I can safely say that MOST university professors would be comfortable with their students using this article as a quick reference. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 01:57, 28 June 2011 (EDT) | I essentially performed a massive surgery on this page. The original was good, but I felt that it needed an academic face-lift. I'm also a little more knowledgeable on this subject than the first author, though they did do a superb job for someone that (I'm assuming) lacked advanced training in biology. I can safely say that MOST university professors would be comfortable with their students using this article as a quick reference. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 01:57, 28 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
:Professor, I did some additional surgery too plus a graft. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:23, 28 June 2011 (EDT) | :Professor, I did some additional surgery too plus a graft. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:23, 28 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Conservative, your surgery included the complete deletion of some parts, for example the "evidence" paragraph. I am sure that you had your reasons, but I believe that it is better for Conservapedia that when the complete deletion of some parts is required, a full, detailed reason should always be provided in the talk page, lest we are accused of censorship. Self-respecting conservatives do not engage in that kind of thing, and we must lead by example. So, what was the reason for the deletion of entire sections from the article? Were they poorly sourced? Were they demonstrably untrue? Do you have reason to believe it was parody? Again, I am not criticizing, but I think it will ultimately benefit Conservapedia if there is some transparence and openness behind the decisions of admins. | ||
| + | ::By the way, how is your new satire article coming along? You mentioned you were working on something, and I am looking forward to it :) | ||
| + | ::Respectfully, | ||
| + | ::--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:37, June 28, 2011
Falsifiability
I take issue with the claim that the endosymbiotic hypothesis is not falsifiable. Off the top of my head, it strongly predicts that a) we should find similarities between mitochondria and chloroplasts and their hypothesized "relatives" in the bacterial kingdoms, and b) that such organelles should have two layers of plasma membrane rather than one. Finding evidence against either of these would falsify the theory. TaKess 17:47, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
I essentially performed a massive surgery on this page. The original was good, but I felt that it needed an academic face-lift. I'm also a little more knowledgeable on this subject than the first author, though they did do a superb job for someone that (I'm assuming) lacked advanced training in biology. I can safely say that MOST university professors would be comfortable with their students using this article as a quick reference. Professor 01:57, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
- Professor, I did some additional surgery too plus a graft. conservative 02:23, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
- Conservative, your surgery included the complete deletion of some parts, for example the "evidence" paragraph. I am sure that you had your reasons, but I believe that it is better for Conservapedia that when the complete deletion of some parts is required, a full, detailed reason should always be provided in the talk page, lest we are accused of censorship. Self-respecting conservatives do not engage in that kind of thing, and we must lead by example. So, what was the reason for the deletion of entire sections from the article? Were they poorly sourced? Were they demonstrably untrue? Do you have reason to believe it was parody? Again, I am not criticizing, but I think it will ultimately benefit Conservapedia if there is some transparence and openness behind the decisions of admins.
- By the way, how is your new satire article coming along? You mentioned you were working on something, and I am looking forward to it :)
- Respectfully,
- --Leo-from-UK 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
