| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | ''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. These flaws have been widely viewed and discussed on the internet, yet the paper's authors have not yet publicly corrected them. See, e.g., http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study and its talk page. PNAS should address the flaws, which 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 the hypothesis depicted in Figure 3. |
| − | :: 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. Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, 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. |