Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Letter to PNAS (view source)

Revision as of 20:33, July 27, 2008

4 bytes removed ,  20:33, July 27, 2008
trimming back to 250 words
Line 15: Line 15:  
''Text:''
 
''Text:''
   −
: The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that ''E. Coli'' bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation:<ref>This is discussed at length at http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study and its talk page.</ref>
+
: The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that ''E. Coli'' bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation:<ref>More detail is provided at http://www.conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study and its talk page.</ref>
    
:: 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.
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,215

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/493290"

Navigation menu