Changes

::::People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date.  E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it".  The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled.  It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released.  The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols.  The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.   

::::People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date.  E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it".  The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled.  It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released.  The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols.  The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.   

::::I'll probably earn a 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource.  With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP.  ''That'' would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable.  Godspeed.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource.  With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP.  ''That'' would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable.  Godspeed.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==

I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter,  made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter,  made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)