| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | ''Author Affiliations:'' | | ''Author Affiliations:'' |
| | | | |
| − | : www.conservapedia.com, teacher of precollege students | + | : www.conservapedia.com, teacher of pre-college students |
| | | | |
| | ''Text:'' | | ''Text:'' |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| | : The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that ''E. Coli'' bacteria evolved through a beneficial mutation:<ref>Detail is 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 evolved through a beneficial mutation:<ref>Detail is 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 contingency hypothesis depicted in Figure 3. |
| | :: 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 for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also 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 for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also 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, contrary to the paper's claim. | | :: 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, contrary to the paper's claim. |
| − | :: 4. It was error to include generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The 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. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th 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. |
| | | | |
| − | : The underlying data for this publicly (NSF) funded research have not been publicly released, despite requests for such release and despite NSF policy that "data collected with public funds belong in the public domain."<ref>http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/common/archive.jsp</ref> | + | : The underlying data for this publicly (NSF) funded research have not been publicly released, despite requests for such release and NSF policy that "data collected with public funds belong in the public domain."<ref>http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/common/archive.jsp</ref> |
| | | | |
| | cc: | | cc: |