Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 564:
::::::What are you talking about? Show me what it says now, and what you suggest to rewrite. I've answered the question enough, and it's tiresome that my answers don't get read, get ignored, then I get asked to answer the same question again. "The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing." I'll repeate myself. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'd leave it as it is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&action=edit§ion=2]]. Although I agree fully with [[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] about base-pairing being the more important concept, readers understand codes, the small addition re: the base pairing G-C A-T doesn't do any harm.--[[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please never address me in such a dismissive manner again: ''I've answered the question enough, and it's tiresome that my answers don't get read, get ignored, then I get asked to answer the same question again. '' Whether it was intend or not --- it is insulting. I've attempted to clarify on the introduction evolution talk page.--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
| |||