Siteadmin, 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
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 189:
Line 189: + +
→Is this correct?: reply
==Is this correct?==
==Is this correct?==
''"The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that E. Coli bacteria evolved through a beneficial mutation"'' Flaws in an argument would tend to put the conclusion in doubt rather than show it to be false. Is the assertion that Lenski has not proved his point or that the data and methodology prove his point is false? This sentence reads to me to be asserting the latter. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 12:36, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
''"The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that E. Coli bacteria evolved through a beneficial mutation"'' Flaws in an argument would tend to put the conclusion in doubt rather than show it to be false. Is the assertion that Lenski has not proved his point or that the data and methodology prove his point is false? This sentence reads to me to be asserting the latter. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 12:36, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
: As explained here, several of the flaws do disprove some of the paper's assertions. For example, the Third Experiment disproves the contingency hypothesis as depicted in Figure 3. Also, the failure of the mutations to scale demonstrates that there is not a fixed mutation central to the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
==How about this
==How about this