Changes

==Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia==

==Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia==

:: ''Title:''

''Title:''

::: Identification of procedural and statistical flaws in the paper "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli".

: Identification of procedural and statistical flaws in the paper "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli".

:: ''Author:''

''Author:''

::: Andrew Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

: Andrew Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

:: ''Author Affiliations:''

''Author Affiliations:''

::: www.conservapedia.com

: www.conservapedia.com

:: ''Text:''

''Text:''

::: 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:

: 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 around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations "arose by 20,000 generations."  The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved this.

:: 1. Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations "arose by 20,000 generations."  The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved this.

:::: 2. A fixed mutation rate is hypothesized, but the failure of mutations to increase with scale disproves this.  If it was inappropriate to compare the Second and Third experiments to the First for scale, then it was an error to treat them similarly statistically.

:: 2. A fixed mutation rate is hypothesized, but the failure of mutations to increase with scale disproves this.  If it was inappropriate to compare the Second and Third experiments to the First for scale, then it was an error to treat them similarly statistically.

:::: 3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.  The Third Experiment results are 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 consistent with the null hypothesis.  

:::: 4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants, and the otherwise highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000 generation in the Second Experiment 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, and the otherwise highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000 generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected pre-existing Cit+ variants.

:::: 5. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments 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 experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.

::: The underlying data for this taxpayer-funded research have not been released to the public, despite requests to do so.

: The underlying data for this taxpayer-funded research have not been released to the public, despite requests to do so.

cc: Editor-in-Chief, PNAS

cc: Editor-in-Chief, PNAS

<br>    New Scientist

::New Scientist

<br>    Selected Congressmen having oversight for research budgets

::Selected Congressmen having oversight for research budgets

<br>    Selected watchdog groups

::Selected watchdog groups