Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount | Thread profile

arstechnica.com — The folks behind Conservapedia have taken issue with the work behind a publication by a prominent evolutionary biologist and demanded he produce the data it's based on. Accidentally, they've created an enlightening demonstration of the challenges of providing the public with access to the scientific work their tax dollars have paid for.

Andy Schlafly = Cretin

Conservapedia is always good for a laugh.

These people have clearly lost their ***** *minds.* I mean, honestly. A few uneducated people are going to stand up to a 20 year scientific experiment for the sake of... an idea? a notion? ***** it - lets all just go back to living in caves and regarding fire as that fearful thing that burns when you touch it. Every man for himself. ***** science.

Can't you see what they are trying to do? Its all in the name off efficiency. The current scientific method takes roughly eight steps: 1) Define the question 2) Observe 3) Form a hypothesis 4) Perform an experiment and collect data 5) Analyze the data 6) Interpret the data to build a framework for your conclusions 7) Publish the results for peer review 8) Retest They simply wish to replace...

Read the wikipedia article for 'conservapedia'; its a good.

There you have it. Macro evolution. They are not the same bacteria they were 20 years ago.

Christ, I'm trying to understand the logic here, but frankly, I just feel like I've had my brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.

Schlafly is so stupid. It's obvious that Jebus told the bacteria to start metabolizing citrate and they did! Checkmate!

I dunno...fire burns me when I touch it.