Difference between revisions of "Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 13: Line 13:
 
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism]].  Are you an atheist?  Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism]].  Are you an atheist?  Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Conservative, I know perfectly well why you deleted that material, I am not asking you to explain it to me; all that I am asking for is that, in the spirit of openness, you acknowledge the complete deletion of a section in the log and in the talk page, clearly providing the reason for why it is deleted. It is very easy to be accused of censorship, and we do not want to provide any ammo to those who criticize us. And... you didn't reply for what concerns your next satire article :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:29, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:29, 28 June 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)
Evobabble is not science. Conservapedia doesn't want the adherents of the religion of atheism to put in their atheist origins myth which is evolution. Conservapedia is not a big fan of astrology and evolution. conservative 12:58, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. Professor 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: Evolution and Atheism. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? conservative 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I know perfectly well why you deleted that material, I am not asking you to explain it to me; all that I am asking for is that, in the spirit of openness, you acknowledge the complete deletion of a section in the log and in the talk page, clearly providing the reason for why it is deleted. It is very easy to be accused of censorship, and we do not want to provide any ammo to those who criticize us. And... you didn't reply for what concerns your next satire article :) --Leo-from-UK 14:29, 28 June 2011 (EDT)