Original sentence: A posting at TalkOrigins Archive by Ian Musgrave stats that upon minimal examination, Batten's claims fall apart.Critics of creationism have been highly critical of Batten's analysis.He states that in Pseudomonas most of the xenobiotic degradation genes are on plasmids.In particular, in response to comments by creationists such as Don Batten,.Musgrave also criticizing Batten for misstating the conclusions of some of the authors of the scientific literature on nylon eating backteria.Musgrave writes that bacteria carry many genes in plasmids, particularly those involved in xenobiotic handling or metabolic functions.NMSR has stated that the gene duplication and frame-shift mutations that gave rise to nylonase were powerful sources of random mutation, whether or not the genes were part of a plasmid as suggested by Batten.Therefore it is entirely likely that a xenobiotic handling enzyme will arise from mutations of xenobiotic handling genes
Edited sentence: Batten's claims should be dismissed as entirely non-scientific.Firstly, bacteria carry many genes in plasmids, particularly those involved in xenobiotic handling or metabolic functions.In Pseudomonas most of the xenobiotic degradation genes are on plasmid.In particular, in response to comments by creationists such as Don Batten, NMSR has stated that it was these mutations that gave rise to nylonase, even if the genes were part of a plasmid as suggested by Batten.It is entirely likely that a xenobiotic handling enzyme will arise from mutations of xenobiotic handling genes.This in no way suggests that plasmids are evidence of a designer, any more than fur is evidence of a designer in that it allows some animals to protect themselves from cold.Upon minimal examination, these claims fall apart