Changes

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems about the thoroughness of the review. <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]</ref>.

Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems about the thoroughness of the review. <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]</ref>.

When receiving a bunch of questions by Andrew Schafly, several examples of irrational behaviour occurred, referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet no [[lawsuit]] was filed yet. Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] (<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>).

When challenged by Schafly, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] (<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>).

When Lenski received a request from  non-biologist Andrew Schafly for [[data]], he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling. Lenski makes it clear that only scientist with enough experience to handle the bacteria properly will get access to the original cultures, which could be considered a reasonable way to make a good use of the taxpayers money.

When Lenski received a request from  non-biologist Andrew Schafly for the [[data]], he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling. Lenski makes it clear that only scientist with enough experience to handle the bacteria properly will get access to the original cultures.

Undisclosed or obscure data for 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 or obscure data for 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>