Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 248:
Line 248: − :::::::You're right, this letter will never see publication in PNAS, and it certainly warrants no response from Richard Lenski. One glance at the letter reveals that its author or authors are not scientifically literate, and it will be relegated to the waste bin. Take point number two as an example. This is undoubtedly the most galling of them all, and only someone who (a) has not read Lenski's paper and (b) has no working knowledge of standard wet lab procedures would raise such an objection. The methods published with the paper plainly state that all clones used in the replay experiments, including clones from later generations, were Cit-. Furthermore, despite what this letter states, there are methods for separating Cit- clones from Cit+ clones in a mixed population. Anyone who has taken an undergraduate microbiology course would know this. This talk page has demonstrated that Conservapedia readers criticizing Lenski lack the necessary expertise to do so. In fact, I would wager that Conservapedia is hoping for no response, because that would eliminate the possibility of having to formulate some kind of rebuttal to what would be surely be a devastating reply from highly trained scientists. Being ignored also allows Conservapedia to posture as if its objections to Lenski's paper were unanswerable, as well as maintain the illusion of a conspiratorial "establishment science" bent on suppressing the truth of creationism. By all means, submit the letter. However, I would caution Conservapedia against proclaiming these "flaws" unanswerable when they have not even been defended on this page.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 22:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 02:57, July 23, 2008
, 02:57, July 23, 2008Reverted edits by Gerlach (Talk); changed back to last version by Kallium
::::::As you said, the truth doesn't require admission. But it does require empirical support, which Lenski provided in ample quantities- but you still have yet to provide anything even beginning to resemble scientific rigor. That is why Stitch75 wrote that response- to ''help you'' improve your letter from that condition.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::As you said, the truth doesn't require admission. But it does require empirical support, which Lenski provided in ample quantities- but you still have yet to provide anything even beginning to resemble scientific rigor. That is why Stitch75 wrote that response- to ''help you'' improve your letter from that condition.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)