Talk:E. coli long-term evolution experiment: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:24, 17 November 2009

Evolutionary biology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from E. coli long-term evolution experiment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 June 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

Wikipedia

Specific Mutation

Have they discovered the specific mutations that allowed for the metabolizm of citrate?

Not yet, I assume that will be the next in the series of papers. If I had to hazard a guess I would predict that it will be a mutation that changes the specificity of a sugar transporter. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should mention be made of the... interesting, to use a non-controversial word, criticism of the evolutionary changes, as mentioned by the lunatics in Conservapedia? Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If their "criticism" ever makes its way into a reliable source, perhaps. However, the fact that some cranks can set up a website to publish their opinions isn't a reason to pay them any heed in a serious science article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The events in question are discussed in the conservapedia article. Though that discussion does not seem to use what I would consider the best source, which is this one [1]. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a contributor suggested the exchange was making the site look bad" - sadly true, it certainly has shaken my previously naive belief in their stellar scientific credentials. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 'debate' / 'controversy' over this experiment should be mentioned in this article. Or at least a link to another page that specifically discusses that 'debate'. It isn't relevant to the science itself but is relevant to the experiment in the broadest sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.219.137 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no debate/controversy. Just a crank site, of which there are thousands in the internet, not many of them worth mentioning in Wikipedia. At least, no their cranky opinions ;-) 201.216.245.25 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. What those people think is really not at all relevant to the real world. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :::::"a contributor suggested the exchange was making the site look bad" - sadly true, it certainly has shaken my previously naive belief in their stellar scientific credentials.  [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 :::::: I think that the 'debate' / 'controversy' over this experiment should be mentioned in this article. Or at least a link to another page that specifically discusses that 'debate'. It isn't relevant to the science itself but is relevant to the experiment in the broadest sense.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/152.14.219.137|152.14.219.137]] ([[User talk:152.14.219.137|talk]]) 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+::::::: But there is no debate/controversy. Just a crank site, of which there are thousands in the internet, not many of them worth mentioning in Wikipedia. At least, no their cranky opinions ;-) [[Special:Contributions/201.216.245.25|201.216.245.25]] ([[User talk:201.216.245.25|talk]]) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 :::::I don't think so. What those people think is really not at all relevant to the real world. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)