Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + +
Talk:Exact sciences (view source)
Revision as of 15:26, February 21, 2009
, 15:26, February 21, 2009to Dinsdale - darn good question
Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:By evolution, I mean the [[theory of evolution through natural selection]], which posits that significant new species have come into being without intelligent intervention.
:Whenever we discuss evolution, we need to cut through the mental fog and specify which [[aspects of evolution]] we're talking about. Most evolution opponents grant that a species can develop new characteristics in the wild (see [[microevolution]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)