953
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 17:41, July 13, 2008
, 17:41, July 13, 2008no edit summary
::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)