Changes

::How do the words Lenski uses "mislead".  If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to?  You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent.  That is the right conclusion.  If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to?  You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent.  That is the right conclusion.  To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect.  By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect.  Thus is cannot be said to be "misleading".  

::How do the words Lenski uses "mislead".  If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to?  You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent.  That is the right conclusion.  If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to?  You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent.  That is the right conclusion.  To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect.  By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect.  Thus is cannot be said to be "misleading".  

::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to Tu Quoque would be too great.   

::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''"Tu Quoque"'' would be too great.   

--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)