241
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 186:
Line 186: + + +
no edit summary
::See my above post regarding scaling of mutation rate. As for disproving "any plausible mutation rate", are you referring just to Cit+ variants, or truly ''any'' mutation rate? If the former, where do you propose the Cit+ cells came from in the first place, and if the latter, see my above post about basic microbiology. Also, your letter claims that flaw #2 disproves a ''fixed'' mutation rate, not, as you just said, ''any'' mutation rate. So which are you claiming?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
::See my above post regarding scaling of mutation rate. As for disproving "any plausible mutation rate", are you referring just to Cit+ variants, or truly ''any'' mutation rate? If the former, where do you propose the Cit+ cells came from in the first place, and if the latter, see my above post about basic microbiology. Also, your letter claims that flaw #2 disproves a ''fixed'' mutation rate, not, as you just said, ''any'' mutation rate. So which are you claiming?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
==Is this correct?==
''"The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that E. Coli bacteria evolved through a beneficial mutation"'' Flaws in an argument would tend to put the conclusion in doubt rather than show it to be false. Is the assertion that Lanski has not proved his point or that the data and methodology prove his point is false? This sentence reads to me to be asserting the latter. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 12:36, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
==How about this
==How about this