Talk:Pseudogene
From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by British cons (Talk | contribs) at 17:41, April 5, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
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 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?--British_cons (talk) 13:41, 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)
- Certainly looks well sourced now. --British_cons (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- These are common knowledge ideas here, but REQUEST citations don't just delete, that is seriously abusive. Etaroced 00:08, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
