Difference between revisions of "Talk:Macroevolution"
Ray Martinez (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST) | The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ------ | ||
: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST) | : In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 04:10, March 8, 2007
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. JoshuaZ 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism?
Ray Martinez 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). JoshuaZ 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? Moioci 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)
- For that matter, why is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. Tsumetai 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)