Changes

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at [[Michigan State University]].<ref>Richard Lenski Biographical Sketch [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]</ref><ref>Richard Lenski Homepage [https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref> He holds a B.A. from [[Oberlin College]] (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a [[doctorate]] in zoology<ref>Purpose in Evolution symposium Participants [http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Purpose_in_Evolution/part6.html]</ref> from the [[University of North Carolina]].<ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref>   

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at [[Michigan State University]].<ref>[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html Richard Lenski Biographical Sketch]</ref><ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/ Richard Lenski Homepage]</ref> He holds a B.A. from [[Oberlin College]] (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a [[doctorate]] in zoology<ref>[http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Purpose_in_Evolution/part6.html Purpose in Evolution symposium Participants]</ref> from the [[University of North Carolina]].<ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref>   

When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school. <ref>http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/lenski.htm</ref>

When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school.<ref>http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/lenski.htm</ref>

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of [[evolution]].  Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.   

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year E. coli experiment in which he claims to have obtained proof of [[evolution]].  Lenski claims that he observed minor changes in bacteria populations in the long-term laboratory study, while insisting that these changes were not due to contamination.   

The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in [[peer review#Time_taken_for_Peer_Review|14 days]], sparking obvious questions <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.  The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.<ref>See [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]].</ref>

The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in [[peer review#Time taken for Peer Review|14 days]], sparking obvious questions <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.  The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for several serious flaws.<ref>See [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]].</ref>

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the ''E. Coli'' bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it. <ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref>

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor, although he did offer to provide the data (strains of the ''E. Coli'' bacteria) to an experienced scientist with access to a laboratory able to handle it.<ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref>

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref>

Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp.&nbsp;2–3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref>

<includeonly>

<includeonly>

{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

</includeonly>

</includeonly>

__NOTOC__

__NOTOC__

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

====Turbidity====  

====Turbidity====

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

====Contaminants???====  

====Contaminants???====

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

A Richard Lenski defender says, "If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process."

A Richard Lenski defender says, "If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process."

In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.

In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

====More missing Numbers====  

====More missing Numbers====

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

====More missing data====  

====More missing data====

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,

A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,

pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and

pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and

nadR <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>.

nadR.<ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>

A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>.

A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

====More missing data====  

====More missing data====

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>

Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.

Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.

</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>

</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>

The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.

The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review|PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

</TD></TR></table>

Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref>

Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]].<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref>

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

Others have commented on Lenski's work while taking it at face value, including biochemist [[Michael Behe]], who famously stated the Lenski's claims ''harmed'' the neo-Darwinian stance - "''If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation.''" <ref>[[Michael Behe]] wrote, in ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', "I had argued that the extreme rarity of the development of chloroquine resistance in malaria was likely the result of the need for several mutations to occur before the trait appeared. Even though the evolutionary literature contains discussions of multiple mutations (5), Darwinian reviewers drew back in horror, acted as if I had blasphemed, and argued desperately that a series of single beneficial mutations certainly could do the trick. Now here we have Richard Lenski affirming that the evolution of some pretty simple cellular features likely requires multiple mutations."  Behe also said, "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation. I show in The Edge of Evolution that it is very reasonable to conclude they did."[http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O]</ref>

Others have commented on Lenski's work while taking it at face value, including biochemist [[Michael Behe]], who famously stated the Lenski's claims ''harmed'' the neo-Darwinian stance - "''If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation.''" <ref>[[Michael Behe]] wrote, in ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', "I had argued that the extreme rarity of the development of chloroquine resistance in malaria was likely the result of the need for several mutations to occur before the trait appeared. Even though the evolutionary literature contains discussions of multiple mutations (5), Darwinian reviewers drew back in horror, acted as if I had blasphemed, and argued desperately that a series of single beneficial mutations certainly could do the trick. Now here we have Richard Lenski affirming that the evolution of some pretty simple cellular features likely requires multiple mutations."  Behe also said, "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation. I show in The Edge of Evolution that it is very reasonable to conclude they did."[http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O]</ref>

==See Also==

==See also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)