Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transitional form"
From Conservapedia
(→Recent quote) |
(→Recent quote: May not be that easy) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::::: I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ::::::: I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ||
:::::::: So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST) | :::::::: So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | ::::::::: If the quotes are relevant, when they date from should not be an issue (but the date of them could affect their relevance). But "many" is a relative term (in fact I would consider changing that in the article), and I'd say that only a few (relatively speaking, although I think it could easily be a dozen or so) have admitted as much. Note the quote from Gould about it being a "trade secret", i.e. it was not something that was widely known. Also, since creationary views have been gaining ground, many of these scientists have been much more guarded in what they admit to, so given that this century is only seven years old, then no, I don't agree that it wouldn't be difficult to find something from this century. That's not to say it's impossible, of course, but it may not be easy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:15, 25 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 06:15, January 25, 2008
Recent quote
Oooh, can we get a quote from a scientist from some point within the last ten years? Barikada 14:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Why? That would seem to be a rather abitrary cut-off point. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... Barikada 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Not it wouldn't. Philip J. Rayment 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. Barikada 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years when looking for a quote to add. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. Barikada 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. Philip J. Rayment 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? Barikada 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- If the quotes are relevant, when they date from should not be an issue (but the date of them could affect their relevance). But "many" is a relative term (in fact I would consider changing that in the article), and I'd say that only a few (relatively speaking, although I think it could easily be a dozen or so) have admitted as much. Note the quote from Gould about it being a "trade secret", i.e. it was not something that was widely known. Also, since creationary views have been gaining ground, many of these scientists have been much more guarded in what they admit to, so given that this century is only seven years old, then no, I don't agree that it wouldn't be difficult to find something from this century. That's not to say it's impossible, of course, but it may not be easy. Philip J. Rayment 01:15, 25 January 2008 (EST)
- So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? Barikada 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. Philip J. Rayment 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. Barikada 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years when looking for a quote to add. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. Barikada 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Not it wouldn't. Philip J. Rayment 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... Barikada 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
