|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki talk:Article of the Weak/Post-flood Marsupial Migration Explained
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a great idea. Let's whip it into shape and load it up. I'm sorry Trent & I made this process so complex, it is one of my deeper embarrassments here. ħuman
01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not actually that bad. I would like less intro before the ratings between the article and the interactive bit. Do you think Nx could rewrite this so you don't have to do a full page load every time you click an arrow. I'll go ask. - π 02:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ug.... This hurts the brain. Sterile cheeseburger 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know somehow convergent evolution is wrong, but every animal is Australia independently adapted to give birth the same way, which is entirely different from the way other mammals give birth. - π 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- But what about the marsupials of South America? They get left out the fun every time this argument comes up. Totnesmartin 10:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know somehow convergent evolution is wrong, but every animal is Australia independently adapted to give birth the same way, which is entirely different from the way other mammals give birth. - π 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ug.... This hurts the brain. Sterile cheeseburger 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this need any more or is this ready? I would like more site links, but we don't have articles on Biogeography or adaptive radiation (that article Cataclysmic evolution could do with some work). I don't think we need to many more references, I don't want to end up like that public school ones where we had about 20 articles to read. - π 00:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled with all the links to WP, surely we can do better than that? Even keeping them, I'd rather see something like "Useful articles on wikipedia:" as a sub-header? ħuman 01:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and that cat ev article needs more than "a little work". I've tried to fix some of the worse spelling errors and "shorthand" style of writing, but it needs a complete going over to be coherent and have some flow. ħuman 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- This one is a little disappointing still. It is such good quality stupid in terms of what he had to over look to make his claim, but it is hard to find any good material for rebutting this nonsense. Maybe this guy has just created a creationist argument so stupid it fails to even be wrong. - π 03:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)