1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 15:52, July 13, 2008
, 15:52, July 13, 2008no edit summary
::::I heard that his assistants, Moe, Larry and Curly spilled Kool-aid in the samples around the 15,000 generation when Moe was trying to poke Larry in the eye. Curly said "Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk" about it. Please look into this! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 11:43, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::::I heard that his assistants, Moe, Larry and Curly spilled Kool-aid in the samples around the 15,000 generation when Moe was trying to poke Larry in the eye. Curly said "Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk" about it. Please look into this! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 11:43, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
(unindent)
I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)