Changes

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 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)

:: 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)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by "substantive"?  I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by "substantive"?  I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"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."  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"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."  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?  Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?  Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?  I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?  Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense?  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?  I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?  Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense?  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing.  Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment?  It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.  I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page".  Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing.  Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment?  It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.  I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page".  Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome".  It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.  What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.  Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)   

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome".  It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.  What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.  Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)   

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question.  Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question.  Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind.  Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false.  If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.

:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind.  Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false.  If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.

 

:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!

:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!

:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"

:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal".  If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal".  If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

   

KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead.  Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view.  Meanwhile, you seem to accept the "expert" view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.

 

:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.

:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==

==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==