| Line 192: |
Line 192: |
| | | | |
| | :::: 1. Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis at about the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that "some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations." The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved this hypothesis as depicted in Figure 3. | | :::: 1. Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis at about the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that "some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations." The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved this hypothesis as depicted in Figure 3. |
| − | :::: 2. Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale tends to disprove both hypotheses. If the Second and Third experiments were so dissimilar to the First Experiment that they cannot be compared for scale, then it was wrong to treat them as similar in the statistical analysis. | + | :::: 2. The stated hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale tends to disprove both hypotheses. If the Second and Third experiments were so dissimilar to the First Experiment that they cannot be compared for scale, then it was wrong to treat them as similar in the statistical analysis. |
| − | :::: 3. Lenski incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the claim of the paper. | + | :::: 3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis. |
| − | :::: 4. It was error for Lenski to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments, and the improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000 generation in the Second Experiment strongly suggests an origin from pre-existing Cit+ variants. There was no legitimate reason to include post 31,000-generation samples in the replay experiments, as Cit+ was already found in the samples by then. | + | :::: 4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants in his experiments, and the otherwise improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000 generation in the Second Experiment strongly suggests an origin from undetected pre-existing Cit+ variants. |
| − | :::: 5. Lenski erred in combining the Third Experiment with the other two based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. | + | :::: 5. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. |
| | | | |
| | ::: The underlying data for this taxpayer-funded has not been released to the public, despite requests to do so. | | ::: The underlying data for this taxpayer-funded has not been released to the public, despite requests to do so. |