Changes

''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:''

:: 2. Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.  If the authors claim that it is 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 sample size disproves this.  If the authors claim that it is 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.