16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 13:05, July 15, 2008
, 13:05, July 15, 2008→Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len
:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit<sup>+</sup> variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit<sup>+</sup> variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit<sup>+</sup> variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit<sup>+</sup> variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::The whole point of the discussion above was to illustrate that there are methods to isolate cells with a particular genotype from a mixed population. Suppose we used the replica plating method (maybe not the best choice, but it's standard procedure). Care to explain where the Cit+ contaminants could possibly come from? And the naivete inherent in objecting that "nothing in the paper" rules it out is simply astounding. Standard laboratory procedures, like isolating specific clones, typically don't show up in papers. For example, if I to write a paper on my research, it would not include a detailed discussion of my protein purification protocol. I might mention that I used an affinity tag in the purification, but there wouldn't be pictures of gels or chromatograms or other such minutiae. Things like that are simply extraneous details that are taken for granted by experienced researchers. There is simply no reason for Lenski et al. to include a discussion of their method for isolating specific clones. This is why this whole exercise of Conservapedia criticizing Lenski's paper is folly, because most Conservapedia users simply don't know standard laboratory techniques. It's kind of important to know what scientists today are able to do on a routine basis before wading in to claim that they couldn't have done what they claim.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==
== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==