Mazille wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Entry added..

Sterling work, old chap.

An excellent resource to use in discussions on EP topics I think you make a very good job of clarifying both the methodological issues with EP, and the fact that criticism of EP has nothing to do with rejecting the Theory of Evolution.

[nitpicking mode]The section on cheater detection is a bit dense, it would be easier on the lay reader if the word count allowed you to unpack some things (or maybe it is just this particular lay reader that is a bit dense ). [/nitpicking mode]

traditionally baby boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue

I would so like to have a citation for this ...

Can I make a request that no-else posts an essay until I've completed mine, you're doing a great job of putting me off. That's a very well laid out piece of writing Mr Samsa. My only criticism is the same as everyone elses; explaining the cheater detection in a little more depth. Otherwise a sterling performance.

Good job Mr. Samsa, and it is much appreciated that you didn't choose a strawman as your example, which would have been a very easy thing to do given the proliferation of silly adaptationist stories.

Thanks for all the comments and feedback everyone

I'll have a look over my cheater detection section again and I'll check with Mazille to see if I'm allowed to make some changes.

katja z wrote:

traditionally baby boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue

I would so like to have a citation for this ...

Out of the Blue and In the Pink - Ben Goldacre

Up until about the 1940s it was pretty standard for boys to be dressed in pink because it was a "harsh" masculine colour like red, whereas blue was a softer, more "girly" colour (in Western culture anyway, I'm not sure about elsewhere). And up until around the 15th Century all babies were called "girls" - males were "knave girls" and females were "gay girls". The term "boy" was used to refer to servants, and it was later appropriated for male babies.

The Ben Goldacre article above actually helps support my criticism of EP as it's on the same subject, and I only just found it now looking for a citation

You've got mail.

Mazille wrote:You've got mail.

You're like my very own Meg Ryan.

Interesting, and well-written. I'll have to follow some of the refs when I have time, as this isn't something I know much about.

Incidentally, did you mean 'spandrel', rather than 'spandel'?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Mazille wrote:You've got mail.

You're like my very own Meg Ryan.

Yeah, but hotter.

Good work Mr.Samsa....so that's what a scientific paper is supposed to look like.

hackenslash wrote:Interesting, and well-written. I'll have to follow some of the refs when I have time, as this isn't something I know much about.

Incidentally, did you mean 'spandrel', rather than 'spandel'?

Cheers

And yes I did. I also meant "attracted" instead of "attrached", along with many, many other typos that I've just gone through and corrected (thanks Katja!). I've also added 3-4 sentences in the cheater detection section which hopefully dilutes some of the denseness of it.

And thanks Durro

Good work, Deeb!

Although I did find a couple of typos and stuff...

Nice effort there DB. You did mention that it was quick & dirty, and so I suspect that a few errors crept in because of this. If I may, without being too picky...

* "Scapular" is the adjectival version of the word "scapula". It's the latter I think you require.
* It's the recurrent laryngeal nerve, not pharyngeal nerve.
* It's convention to write anatomical structures in lower case. Don't capitalize anatomy, unless it's at the beginning of a sentence.
* I suspect you meant cartilage, and not cartridge.

Apart from these minor issues, I liked your submission.



Needs more citations though...to make it scientific and all.

Durro wrote:
Needs more citations though...to make it scientific and all.

Don't go there girlfriend!

I'm almost done, but I'm afraid that I'll exceed the word count, and I absolutely hate having to shorten my texts. For one thing, it takes longer than the writing! I could do with some moral support right now.

katja z wrote:I'm almost done, but I'm afraid that I'll exceed the word count, and I absolutely hate having to shorten my texts. For one thing, it takes longer than the writing! I could do with some moral support right now.

Just make the font smaller...

Why is it that tricks from high school are never allowed in university?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

katja z wrote:I'm almost done, but I'm afraid that I'll exceed the word count, and I absolutely hate having to shorten my texts. For one thing, it takes longer than the writing! I could do with some moral support right now.

Just make the font smaller...

Why is it that tricks from high school are never allowed in university?

RatSkep is a university? In this case, I want to switch my PhD to RatSkep!

katja z wrote:

Why is it that tricks from high school are never allowed in university?

RatSkep is a university? In this case, I want to switch my PhD to RatSkep!

I was speaking more generally there, but I wouldn't getting a Ratchelor of Science.

I'm actually considering turning the question on its head with a topic where the informed layperson could be said to be ahead of the scientific community. The longstanding scientifically supported myth is that female ejaculation is mostly urine and doesn't really exist. I don't think I'll bother, but it's a thought.

Durro wrote:Nice effort there DB. You did mention that it was quick & dirty, and so I suspect that a few errors crept in because of this. If I may, without being too picky...

* "Scapular" is the adjectival version of the word "scapula". It's the latter I think you require.
* It's the recurrent laryngeal nerve, not pharyngeal nerve.
* It's convention to write anatomical structures in lower case. Don't capitalize anatomy, unless it's at the beginning of a sentence.
* I suspect you meant cartilage, and not cartridge.

Apart from these minor issues, I liked your submission.



Needs more citations though...to make it scientific and all.

Yup, it woz a 20 minute rush job, as I am working on other things. I Kaptialize everthing! There are other errors too, like incomplete sentences and lousy grammar!

katja z wrote:I'm almost done, but I'm afraid that I'll exceed the word count, and I absolutely hate having to shorten my texts. For one thing, it takes longer than the writing! I could do with some moral support right now.

From my own experience, shortening the text has always been an essential step in enhancing the quality of my writing, and can often be used to make the matter clearer. Just my two cents, and I realize that the advice could cut both ways as far as moral support is concerned.