28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: − +
"must be changed because it has been discussed on the internet" won't convince these people, I think!
''Text:''
''Text:''
: 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:
: Flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that ''E. Coli'' bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation, as discussed at 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 the hypothesis depicted in Figure 3.
:: 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.