Changes

Regarding his [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf experiment on historical contingency in evolution], [[Richard Lenski]] rejected a request to release his bacteria mutation data to the public,<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref>{{failed verification}}.  An analysis of his work<ref>Blount et al., "Historical contingency and the [[evolution]] of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli'', [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full 105 PNAS 7899-7906] (June 10, 2008).</ref>, however, reveals serious flaws even without a full disclosure of the data.  Note that the peer review on Lenski's paper took somewhere between 0 (non-existent) and at most 14 days (including administrative time), and Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics.  In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101".

Regarding his [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf experiment on historical contingency in evolution], [[Richard Lenski]] rejected a request to fully release his bacteria mutation data to the public.  An analysis of his work<ref>Blount et al., "Historical contingency and the [[evolution]] of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli'', [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full 105 PNAS 7899-7906] (June 10, 2008).</ref>, however, reveals serious flaws even without a full disclosure of the data.  Note that the peer review on Lenski's paper took somewhere between 0 (non-existent) and at most 14 days (including administrative time), and Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics.  In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101".

1.  Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper.  Figure 3 proposes a step-up in mutation rate to Cit⁺ due to a historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurring at about the 31,000th generation, yet the Third (and largest) Experiment in Table 1 shows Cit⁺ arising just as often before the 31,000th generation as after.  The abstract, in further contradiction with Figure 3, suggests that the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurred prior to the 20,000th generation.

1.  Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper.  Figure 3 proposes a step-up in mutation rate to Cit⁺ due to a historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurring at about the 31,000th generation, yet the Third (and largest) Experiment in Table 1 shows Cit⁺ arising just as often before the 31,000th generation as after.  The abstract, in further contradiction with Figure 3, suggests that the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurred prior to the 20,000th generation.