Changes

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked:  wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data?  And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available?  Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked:  wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data?  And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available?  Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked.  And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''.  But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them.  As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask.  That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher.

:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked.  And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''.  But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them.  As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask.  That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.

:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data.  They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results.  Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information.  Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such.  But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence.  So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?

:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data.  They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results.  Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information.  Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such.  But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence.  So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?

:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)