Changes

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Toffeeman's comment seemed to me to be substantive in any sense you could name. In what way was it a 'misrepresentation'? [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 10:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

 

 

Okay, let's get back to basic, substantive comments.  When I read the PNAS response, I don't see it being a "non-responsive explanation" or a "failure to address the five errors identified in the Letter to PNAS".  What I see is  a refutation of the objections raised by Aschlafly in his letter with regard to the statistics-based issues he raised.  The PNAS response devotes seven sentences to explaining why the underlying statistics in the published experiment were sound, and following accepted practices.  A follow-up point in the second paragraph states that the statistical misunderstanding by Aschlafly is of such a basic level that the PNAS journal is not the appropriate forum to respond with a lesson in experimental statistics to explain his misunderstanding in detail.  In short, they are stating, professionally, that Aschlafly needs to learn more about experimental statistics and then re-examine his issues to see if they are, in fact, issues (which PNAS says they are not). 

 

 

What I'd suggest then, is that the appropriate response is for Aschlafly to defend the statistical analysis he used in identifying his issues, to respond to the PNAS assertion that it was erroneous.  To summarize, PNAS didn't dodge a response - their response is that the analysis was flawed.  Any response by Aschlafly to that assertion is up to him. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

 

: I concur with DinsdaleP. The PNAS response is pretty much what I expected given what I perceived to be the general lack of receptiveness to information provided by others with more experience in biology in the discussions leading up the letter's creation (clearly, others have differing opinions). Thus it would appear that either biologists as a class are terribly poor at recognizing "the truth" or maybe it's not the biologists who are having the problem. I'd like to suggest another route, in addition to DinsdaleP's suggestion to explicitly defend Andy's statistical claims. Recall that the strains and cultures described in the paper remain available to other scientists if they choose to reproduce the experiments. In the several months since the "Lenski affair" began, what success have Conservapedia members (at least those interested in the topic) had in locating bacteriology labs sympathetic to Conservapedia's mission to investigate Blount et al.'s work and rerun the experiments? As numerous others have noted, reproduction of experimental results is a gold standard in science. The strains provide the best evidence for or against the conclusions in the paper. I'd humbly suggest that obtaining the help of a friendly lab would provide the most sure and direct means of resolving the issues.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)