Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
paper 180 is well-researched
Line 469: Line 469:  
:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.  Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.  Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.
 +
 +
I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
    
==Detractor Lineup==
 
==Detractor Lineup==
99

edits

Navigation menu