Changes

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.<ref>https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/</ref>

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.<ref>https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/</ref>

Lenski is best known for his questionable claim to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that [[E. coli]] bacteria made minor changes in a long-term laboratory study, and insisting that it was not due to contamination.  His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking obvious questions<ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.

Richard Lenski is best known for his questionable claim to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that [[E. coli]] bacteria made minor changes in a long-term laboratory study, and insisting that it was not due to contamination.  His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking obvious questions<ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.

When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]</ref>

When challenged, Richard Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]</ref>

When Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by [[Creation science|open-minded scientists]].

When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by [[Creation science|open-minded scientists]].

Undisclosed data from the central claims in 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 data from the central claims in 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>

Data for when that occurred, and how often?

Data for when that occurred, and how often?

A 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.

Data about these and other characteristics?

Data about these and other characteristics?

A Lenski defender says, "Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers."

A Richard Lenski defender says, "Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers."

What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.

What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.

DATA??

DATA??

A Lenski defender says, "The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper."

A Richard Lenski defender says, "The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper."

No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.

No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.

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 Lenski defender 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 defender 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>