Changes

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.  

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.  

Reading over the paper, I didn’t find anything about a “historical contingency” around the 31,000th generation. What I believe I am seeing is a misunderstanding, Lenski was looking for two scenarios, First he indicates that if the ability for the E. Coli to consume citrate was due to a mutation, than the rate of the mutation would remain constant, but if it was population that made the mutation more likely, there would be a point where the mutation rate would increase. The graph simply showed both options, so I believe there was a misunderstanding of the graph.  

Reading over the paper, I didn’t find anything about a “historical contingency” around the 31,000th generation. What I believe I am seeing is a misunderstanding, Lenski was looking for two scenarios, First he indicates that if the ability for the E. Coli to consume citrate was due to a mutation, than the rate of the mutation would remain constant, but if it was population that made the mutation more likely, there would be a point where the mutation rate would increase. The graph simply showed both options, so I believe there was a misunderstanding of the graph.  

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.  

I am not sure what you are trying to point out here. As the PNAS pointed out, mutations are random. Another note is that Lenski adressed this in his paper, and highlighted it in the article, even pointing out changes in the third experiment. Just a question, what do you mean by treating “them similarly statistically.”?  

I am not sure what you are trying to point out here. As the PNAS pointed out, mutations are random. Another note is that Lenski adressed this in his paper, and highlighted it in the article, even pointing out changes in the third experiment. Just a question, what do you mean by treating “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.  

Erm… why was the Monte Carlo resampling incorrect? I cannot make heads nor tail of what you were thinking when you wrote this. Also, the result was inconsistent with the null hypothesis by a margin of 92 percent.  

Erm… why was the Monte Carlo resampling incorrect? I cannot make heads nor tail of what you were thinking when you wrote this. Also, the result was inconsistent with the null hypothesis by a margin of 92 percent.  

::::'''''"Are you not making an assumption here"'''''.  Spelling mistakes signify little beyond spelling.  If you were to consider swimming to the bottom of the Pacific and I said "you won't be able to, you can't breathe underwater" then I would be right.  If I were to write "U wont bee able to, yu can't breev undewatta" I would '''''still''''' be right about your ability to swim to the bottom of the Pacific.  Woefully wrong about spelling, but spot on about the status of your gills.  On the "tone" of the edit I might remind you that PNAS took exception to the "tone" of the letter.  ''"Mr. Schlafly's final comment about release of data is uncalled for". '' Professor Lenski certainly took exception to the tone of ''both'' emails to him: ''"(g)iven the '''continued''' rudeness of your second email"'' (my emphasis).  And, naturally, it makes little difference to the validity of the criticisms: if I were to say "you *******************, you can't breathe underwater" I would ''still'' be right.  So "your spelling is bad" or "you are being rude" simply fail to negate the statement "the letter was wrong". In the abscence of a negation coupled with plenty of corroboration, we a forced to the conclusion that the letter had little merit. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::::'''''"Are you not making an assumption here"'''''.  Spelling mistakes signify little beyond spelling.  If you were to consider swimming to the bottom of the Pacific and I said "you won't be able to, you can't breathe underwater" then I would be right.  If I were to write "U wont bee able to, yu can't breev undewatta" I would '''''still''''' be right about your ability to swim to the bottom of the Pacific.  Woefully wrong about spelling, but spot on about the status of your gills.  On the "tone" of the edit I might remind you that PNAS took exception to the "tone" of the letter.  ''"Mr. Schlafly's final comment about release of data is uncalled for". '' Professor Lenski certainly took exception to the tone of ''both'' emails to him: ''"(g)iven the '''continued''' rudeness of your second email"'' (my emphasis).  And, naturally, it makes little difference to the validity of the criticisms: if I were to say "you *******************, you can't breathe underwater" I would ''still'' be right.  So "your spelling is bad" or "you are being rude" simply fail to negate the statement "the letter was wrong". In the abscence of a negation coupled with plenty of corroboration, we a forced to the conclusion that the letter had little merit. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I am resting under a similar assumption. My next couple of questions, Aschlafly, first off, why did you refuse to give a direct answer to a single question, instead option to say "Your spelling was bad, hence, you are closed minded." I think you mean to say "I have no idea how to give a correct response, hence I will just refuse to answer you." Until you actually answer my questions, I will assume you do not understand how to answer. Second, yes, there are "I don't understand" parts in my questions, parts I wanted you to clarify so I could understand them. Refusing to answer those makes it look, again, like you simply don't understand, in this case, you don't understand what YOU wrote. Finally, the "general link" was a link to the cumulative research of Richard Lenski, so that point is completely invalid. If you could respond to my post WITHOUT brushing it off, it would be deeply appreciated. (by the way, I re-checked the spelling just for you.)

:::::I am resting under a similar assumption. My next couple of questions, Aschlafly, first off, why did you refuse to give a direct answer to a single question, instead option to say "Your spelling was bad, hence, you are closed minded." I think you mean to say "I have no idea how to give a correct response, hence I will just refuse to answer you." Until you actually answer my questions, I will assume you do not understand how to answer. Second, yes, there are "I don't understand" parts in my questions, parts I wanted you to clarify so I could understand them. Refusing to answer those makes it look, again, like you simply don't understand, in this case, you don't understand what YOU wrote. Finally, the "general link" was a link to the cumulative research of Richard Lenski, so that point is completely invalid. If you could respond to my post WITHOUT brushing it off, it would be deeply appreciated. (by the way, I re-checked the spelling just for you.) [[User:AlexaJ|AlexaJ]]