Timeline for How does Darwinian Evolution work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 30, 2019 at 5:58 | history | edited | De Novo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar fix!!!
|
| S Mar 30, 2019 at 5:58 | history | suggested | cell0 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar fix!!!
|
| Mar 29, 2019 at 19:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 30, 2019 at 5:58 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2019 at 19:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Mar 29, 2019 at 19:40 | |||||
| Nov 12, 2017 at 17:31 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Jun 27, 2017 at 6:33 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 755 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://biology.stackexchange.com/ with https://biology.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 8, 2015 at 4:16 | comment | added | AMR | @Remi.b I wasn't telling you to not read it, just that I didn't think that you should edit. The paper is troubling me, because it could be one of those papers that could be pure crap or could actually have something profound to say, but would require several read throughs and needs to be debated many times. I still am heavily leaning towards it being pure crap, but... I still maintain, however that MK is vandalizing posts, even if the paper has something interesting to say. | |
| Dec 7, 2015 at 16:27 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 125 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2015 at 8:12 | comment | added | AMR | The article was published more than 3 months ago, and does not have a single citation in a peer-reviewed paper. | |
| Dec 7, 2015 at 8:07 | comment | added | AMR | @Remi.b. Don't. I read the paper. It is bad science, whether or not it was published on Plos. In their methods, they mention that their strain is AmpR, but they then make no mention of using antibiotics. That is a recipe for contamination. They also do not check to see whether or not any of their strains were LacZ diploids with an F Plasmid. Their controls are bad, their analysis is bad, and their conclusions are based on incorrect assumptions. No one ever said that you cannot have revertants within a species, gene conversion is well documented, but they aren't reverting to an ancestor. | |
| Dec 7, 2015 at 6:42 | comment | added | Remi.b | That looks like an eventually interesting paper (the second link). I never heard of such process. I would love to hear more on this subject. I'll include your paper in my answer and might modify the answer later once I read the paper. Thank you. | |
| Dec 7, 2015 at 6:38 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 173 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2015 at 3:25 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | @Remi.b "Your link is not a scientific paper and is not showing any evidence." How about this? Predictable Evolution Trumps Randomness of Mutations scientificamerican.com/article/… The following brand new paper(published on August 25, 2015) has confirmed the directed(or adaptive) mutation. Evidence for Retromutagenesis as a Mechanism for Adaptive Mutation in Escherichia coli journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/… | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 19:43 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | @Remi.b "No, it is not taboo!" I asked for some evidences(e.g. papers) for the following claim of yours in my comment in another thread, but not only did you refuse to answer it, but it was deleted by a moderator. "the likeliness of these changes to happen is not dependent on the consequence they will have on the phenotype (shortly speaking, phenotype is how an individual looks like) and on the reproductive success." | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 10:13 | comment | added | Remi.b | Please just accept learning about evolutionary biology a little bit and you will be able to ask better question. I promise that I am doing my best to help (i.e. right above I have suggested a question and have described steps on how to best ask this question). I will not react to any further comments below, we already wrote too many useless comments here. | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 10:13 | comment | added | Remi.b | No, it is not taboo! If you have further questions about why your questions have been closed, ask them on meta.biology.SE. | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 10:06 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | @Remi.b "As I already said, if you have a (well defined and concise) question, just open a new post and ask it." Unfortunately I cannot do so because all the previous questions of mine were closed as being too broad while they were specific enough. It seems that questioning the tenet of the theory of evolution is kind of taboo in this site, which I think is a pretty unscientific attitude. | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 9:57 | comment | added | Remi.b | You might want to ask a question specific to Cairns et al. 1988. But before you do so, I recommend 1) following an introductory course to evolutionary biology so that you are are to ask a clear question, 2) reading this article who seem to be a direct response to the previous paper and 3) consider the generality and potential importance of the mechanism described by Cairns et al. 1988 (I haven't read the paper). | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 9:56 | comment | added | Remi.b |
Your link is not a scientific paper and is not showing any evidence. Also, the author (Mae-Wan_Ho is criticized as doing pseudo-science and not science). You should read it before claiming what they did. However, from the text you link, Ho cite a paper (Cairns et al. 1988) that seems (from reading the abstract) that cells may have mechanism for choosing which mutations will occur (which contradict what I said indeed).
|
|
| Dec 6, 2015 at 9:54 | comment | added | Remi.b | @MakotoKato I am not going to be able to address all the unclear questions and bad claims that you are making in comments of my various answers on this website. As I already said, if you have a (well defined and concise) question, just open a new post and ask it. | |
| Dec 6, 2015 at 5:40 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | "the likeliness of these changes to happen is not dependent on the consequence they will have on the phenotype (shortly speaking, phenotype is how an individual looks like) and on the reproductive success." The following paper seems to have shown that this claim is false. Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php | |
| Nov 8, 2015 at 5:38 | comment | added | Dexter | Wow :) 'Accidentally' :P | |
| Nov 8, 2015 at 2:35 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2015 at 18:14 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Nov 3, 2015 at 16:29 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2015 at 21:13 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2015 at 14:27 | vote | accept | PRO META X | ||
| Nov 1, 2015 at 23:20 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 820 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2015 at 19:36 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 773 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2015 at 19:07 | history | edited | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4265 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2015 at 18:37 | history | answered | Remi.b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |