Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply, question for Philip, question about peer reviewers for paper
Line 348: Line 348:  
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''":  On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?).  It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
 
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''":  On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?).  It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
 
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.
 +
 +
:::: But Philip, I have a question for you:  do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it?  It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data.  Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.
 +
 +
:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,897

edits

Navigation menu