This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance). Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created from material moved from the article Nylon-eating bacteria as result of an extended discussion on that article's talk page. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor added some banners claiming the intro provided insufficient context, and was unencyclopedic. I believe I have addressed those concerns. I would appreciate it if the editor that added the banners either agreed to their removal or provided specific comments any remaining problems. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

When I first saw the article, it wasn't readily understandable to the casual reader. It's been cleaned up quite a bit and explains its subject much better now, so sure, I agree that the tags are no longer necessary. It's not featured by a long shot, but it's not bad at all. Alinnisawest ( talk) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I made the mistake of thinking I could move the material over from nylon-eating bacteria in one edit and come back later to work on the intro. However, people seem quicker off the mark around here than they used to be. :) Rusty Cashman ( talk) 17:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Added by 69.19.14.17 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) beneath the article's last sentence:

^This is inconsitent with Wikipedia article Nylon-eating bacteria which states "The P. aeruginosa strain" which the scientist's studied "did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain." [— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.17 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Cyberpower. On a second reading I prefer your version to mine. The phrase "highly critical" at the beginning of the paragraph is sufficient to capture the tone of the t.o. cite. Garamond Lethe 15:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

"critics of creationism and intelligent design" you mean..scientists, right ? 181.14.199.130 ( talk) 17:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

In addition to scientists, teachers, scholars, students, their parents, and even some religious figures also criticize creationism and intelligent design. So, no, it's actually an apt choice of words.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I also found the sentence loaded so have reworded it. — Paleo Neonate – 11:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC) reply

There were various other WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV issues that I tried to address. — Paleo Neonate – 12:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply