16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 15:43, July 17, 2008
, 15:43, July 17, 2008→Formal Response to PNAS
:::::::::Gerlach, the most obvious lesson from this page is how a few, yourself included, seem determined to defend a flawed paper no matter what the truth brings. You have free will to reject whatever you want, but you're only hurting yourself by that approach. People who do open their minds are amazed by the insights and happiness it brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Gerlach, the most obvious lesson from this page is how a few, yourself included, seem determined to defend a flawed paper no matter what the truth brings. You have free will to reject whatever you want, but you're only hurting yourself by that approach. People who do open their minds are amazed by the insights and happiness it brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::This is such a strange response, Andy. The attitude that you and several of your defenders seem to have is that the criticisms you have made of Lenski's paper cannot be rebutted. However, the fact that you ''can'' level criticism at something doesn't make that criticism true. That is, you may be wrong. And that is the case here. Myself and others have pointed out that your alleged flaws in Lenski's paper are incorrect, and based on misunderstanding it, or, even worse, simply not reading it carefully. There has been little to no substantive response to our detailed rebuttals. Replies from you or other defenders of the Conservapedia article amount to little more than brazen declarations that we are wrong or "nonresponsive", and that criticisms in the original article remain unscathed. But for people who claim to have "the truth" on their side, this is simply baffling. If the veracity of your claims against Lenski's paper are so obviously true, then it should be an easy task to provide in depth responses to the points that we have been raising against your article. I'm not above criticizing scientific papers. Bad papers get published frequently, after all. However, Lenski's paper does not appear to be one of those. Notice, though, that I am not claiming it to be perfect, no paper is. That said, whatever flaws the paper may have, those presented in the Conservapedia article are not among them. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:43, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)