16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 145:
Line 145: + + + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 19:09, July 17, 2008
, 19:09, July 17, 2008→Formal Response to PNAS
:::::::::: Lenski claims there is a mutation rate, yet his presented data show that the number of mutations do not scale with sample size. His presented data disprove both of his hypotheses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Lenski claims there is a mutation rate, yet his presented data show that the number of mutations do not scale with sample size. His presented data disprove both of his hypotheses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: First, we need to clarify what we mean by "flaw". Are we talking about serious methodological flaws or errors in interpretation that fatally undermine the paper's conclusion? If so, I fail to see any such flaws. Of course, any honest scientist recognizes that any work at the frontier of science has the potential to be wrong. It ''may'' be that future work shows Lenski to be wrong. But let's not confuse this possibility with actuality: saying that something might be wrong is not the same as saying that it is. On the other hand, by "flaw" we may mean minor experimental details that could have been better. In this case, the paper is flawed, and Lenski himself admits this in the supporting information. But ''every'' paper is flawed in this manner, and I doubt you'll find any investigator who wouldn't say that they wish they had some things differently during the course of their research. As an example of what I'm talking about, the Lenski group's statistical analysis would have been improved if they could have accounted for the evolution of increased cell size (and, therefore, decreased cell density) in later generations. As it stands, their analysis ''underestimates'' the potentiation effect in these generations because replays of later generations involved fewer cells. But this flaw, and other flaws of this type, do not undermine the conclusion of the paper.
:::::::::: Regarding the mutation rate argument, see the earlier discussion on this page. The third experiment was significantly different than the first two. The experimental scheme was different, it was performed at at different time and with different conditions, and utilized, for the most part, different clones than the first two. And Lenski doesn't just claim there is a mutation rate in potentiated cells, he ''actually measures it''. But frankly, I don't understand your argumentation here. It seems that you are trying to suggest that all the Cit+ mutants isolated were the result of contamination. This clearly isn't the case, for several reasons. However, this isn't the place for this particular discussion, as there is already such a discussion elsewhere on this page. I still haven't seen any adequate response to our points against the Conservapedia article, and I don't think I am closed-minded for expecting such a response. As I said, I'm open to the possibility that the Lenski paper is flawed, but I expect cogent argumentation to support any such flaws. I haven't seen that here.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 15:09, 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)