| Line 189: |
Line 189: |
| | :: ''Text:'' | | :: ''Text:'' |
| | | | |
| − | ::: Flaws in the foregoing PNAS paper negate its claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation in the experiment. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study and the corresponding talk page. In summary, the flaws are: | + | ::: Flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that ''E. Coli'' bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study and its talk page. The flaws include: |
| | | | |
| − | :::: 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 the hypothesis depicted in Figure 3. |
| − | :::: 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. | + | :::: 2. The hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations to increase based on scale disproves the hypotheses. If the Second and Third experiments were so dissimilar to the First Experiment that they cannot be compared for scale, then it was error to treat them as similar for the statistical analysis. |
| | :::: 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. | | :::: 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 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. | | :::: 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. |