20
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,137:
Line 1,137: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 22:59, June 26, 2008
, 22:59, June 26, 2008Paper has no credibility because lead author won't answer simple, basic questions
:: What is important is that Lenski is a superb scientist. I'd be a little testy too if some dweeb asked me for data AFTER I had already provided it. Andy got the smackdown he deserved, and is now the laughing stock of the internet.--[[User:Watwood|Watwood]] 16:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:: What is important is that Lenski is a superb scientist. I'd be a little testy too if some dweeb asked me for data AFTER I had already provided it. Andy got the smackdown he deserved, and is now the laughing stock of the internet.--[[User:Watwood|Watwood]] 16:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==
IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:
(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result), and
(2) -- whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.
Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --
[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]
More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]
Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)