Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-08-08T18:36:10Z

AckerLite: /* Progress */ new section

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Stitch75's advice has already been disregarded, and it seems as though you have arrived at your final word choice for the letter. I think that the letter in its current state is fatally flawed and would not warrant publication by PNAS or any other reputable scientific journal. I say this not because I think that the objections raised in the letter are misguided, but because they are presented as assertions without rationale or supporting evidence. For what it's worth, I'll address the five points individually and offer suggestions to improve them:

: Your insulting tone (any other "reputable" journal) discredits yourself, but I'll respond this one time to you below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:1)Drop the complaint about Fig 3. The paper's hypothesis does not depend upon the jump in mutation rate happening at 31,000 generations; it's merely a graphical representation of the difference between the contingent hypothesis and the rare mutation hypothesis. Nobody has objected that the y-axis of the graph lacks numerical values, have they? Also, since this figure represents the hypothesis formed before the data was obtained, where ''should'' the jump have gone? It's location is arbitrary until the data is collected. The abstract and the results section state that the data supports a potentiating event at the 20,000th generation. Since the paper does state the p-value of the third replay, it's inaccurate to say that the paper fails to admit anything.

:: No scientific paper should present a graphical depiction of a falsehood, without indicating that it is false. Figure 3 suggests that the potentiating mutation occurred at the 31,000th, despite the data proving otherwise. If the authors won't correct that error, then they're unlikely to correct any other error also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It is not a falsehood; it is a hypothesis. The hypothesis must be formed before data is collected. They hypothesis was that a potentiating mutation occurred that increased the rate of mutation to Cit+. Prior to running the experiment, it is impossible to know when (or even whether) that potentiating mutation occurred. Given that, it is not an 'error' to show the jump at the 31,000th generation, or the 15,000th, or the 10,000th - any point picked for the figure is abitrary. The hypothesis was not that a potentiating mutation took place ''at the 31,000th generation''. For Lenski to put the graph jump at the 20,000th generation would imply that he got the data and then altered the original hypothesis to make it a perfect fit with the results - and ''that'' would be an ethical breach. The data collected suggest that the hypothesis was correct in that a potentiating mutation took place - and they further suggest that this mutation took place at about the 20k generation point. This does not disprove fig 3; it refines it. Again, you may as well object that fig 3 doesn't provide numerical values on the y-axis.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

:2)This point is where I think your best argument lies, but it should be restated along the lines of: the null hypothesis suggests a fixed mutation rate rather than historical contingency. However, the largest replay experiment did not demonstrate the expected increase in Cit+ mutations, and was consistent with the null hypothesis with a p-value of 0.0823 by the Monte Carlo test method.

:: Your reply to the second point is unresponsive to the flaw. You seem to completely misunderstand it, or hope others do. Any fixed "mutation rate" should scale with sample size, yet the data prove otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Previous comment removed by [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The paper plainly states, "The third replay experiment was similar in design to the second, but on a larger scale." So I don't know why you imply that the experiments were significantly different. Yet the results from the second and third experiments do NOT scale with sample size, thereby disproving any plausible type of fixed mutation rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Sorry- I reread the supporting materials and methods and you are correct about the experimental conditions. Perhaps I was confusing with the first; I don't know. In any case I have retracted the comment.

::::: Nonetheless, claiming that the lack of expected scaling disproves the entire paper is still an unsupported methodological leap. The point is that based on the good P-values, the Cit+ clones arose later than expected in all three replays (independent of one another) based on the mathematical model of the null hypothesis. Thus it was apparently not a single, fortuitous and completely random event. I explain that under #3 below as it is better suited to that section.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The third replay experiment was similar in design but clearly, not the same in some aspects. As I noted previously, their plating densities were higher in the third experiment. That was an change in the experimental conditions. Blount et al. noted that the results produced a smaller number of mutants than expected -- assuming the conditions really were comparable -- but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:52, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You write, "but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same." That's known as circular reasoning. You can't accept that the mutations do not scale, and so you insist that somehow the conditions "apparently" must have been significantly different. Under your approach, you'd insist there must have been a significant difference in the experiments no matter what the evidence is or what the paper says (it says they were similar).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::At a basic level Argon’s argument is not circular. Any appearance of circularity arises from ambiguous wording in the last clause in his statement.

::::::::We have three propositions:

::::::::1. If the conditions were the same the same then the results would be the same (“if C then R”)
::::::::2. The results were not the same (“R”)
::::::::3. The conditions were the same (“C”)

::::::::These three premises are inconsistent. That being so, you can set any two of three as the premises and negate the third as the conclusion. The second proposition is not an issue: all are agreed that the results were not the same (did not scale). So the question is do we accept the first proposition and reject the third or do we accept the third and reject the first? That is to say do we argue:

::::::::'''First argument:'''
::::::::C
::::::::Not-R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-if C then R

::::::::Or do we argue:

::::::::'''Second argument'''
::::::::If C then R
::::::::Not R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-C

::::::::Neither argument is circular (does not have its conclusion as part of its premises). The choice between them may be arbitrary but what we have is a lack of corroboration of the disputed premises (“If C then R” and “C”).

::::::::Except that we do have alternative corroboration for the conclusion of the second argument and the negation of a premise in the first argument: “Not-C” is specifically stated in the paper, necessitating rejection of the first argument.

::::::::If you reject the first argument on the basis of the second argument then it would be circular (you conclude “Not-C”, thus you reject the first argument, thus you adopt the second, thus you conclude “Not-C”, which is where you started from). Whether Argon has done that depends on what “apparently” refers to. If it refers to the paper saying it was not the same then it isn’t circular. The argument is

::::::::the paper says “Not-C”,
::::::::thus you reject the first argument,
::::::::thus you adopt the second,
::::::::thus you conclude “Not-C”

::::::::“Not-C” does not support “the paper says “Not-C”” and the circularity is broken.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:07, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::In the third experiment, additional clones were used. The authors write: "Clones were chosen to maximize the diversity of colony morphologies from each sample, in case only certain types could produce Cit+ mutants." This is different from the selection of clones in the first and second experiments. Also in contrast to the second experiment which grew cells in DM500 media, they used DM1000 and DM2000 media to grow the cells in the third replay. Cells were plated at higher densities in the third replay experiment.

:::::::::As the authors comment, when they designed the third replay conditions, they assumed that their changes would not cause significant differences. Still, there clearly were differences in the results and there were some differences in the conditions. Note that if, as Andy initially suggested, the initial cultures were contaminated with Cit+ cells, one might expect that contamination to scale as well between the second and third experiments.

:::::::::In any case, the authors clearly noted the anomaly, admitted that they're not sure why it happened and cited the statistics from the third replay experiment in their paper (The results still trended with the previous experiments). It's up for readers to decide whether their conclusions are reasonable, based on the data the authors have presented. Most likely, future experiments, particularly with whole genome sequencing of the isolated clones, will confirm or deny the paper's conclusions. That's pretty much how science works at the cutting edge. Another method would be for you to find a microbiology lab to request the clones and try reproducing the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:14, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Argon, making basic errors of logic and statistics and ignoring flaws even after they are pointed out is not "pretty much how science works at the cutting edge," as you put it. It's clear that nothing will persuade you to question this paper. Your herculean efforts to claim that the third and second experiments were so different as to explain their failure to scale is disproved by common sense, logic, and the paper's own statement that these experiments were similar. At this point I suggest that you open your mind for your sake. But you have free will to do as you like, including even insisting that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 1 August 2008 (ED

::::::::::::Andy, it's no skin off my teeth if future results disconfirm the current hypothesis. I never publicly called Lenski out or asserted that his conduct was unbecoming when I hadn't read the paper fully. I was never 'rebuked' publicly by Lenski. I don't have papers or grants subject to review by Lenski or a relationship anyone in his lab. So no, I don't 'have a dog' in this debate.

::::::::::::Science is tentative at the cutting edge. I do not think for one moment that the paper is the "be all and end all" of all research on the subject or that every detail has been exhaustively investigated. I do question the paper, like all first papers in a research topic, but on the whole, I think the conclusions are *reasonably* supported. In my work with bacteria I have seen very different results from what I initially presumed were relatively insignificant changes. Later experiments suggested why the experiments were unexpectedly sensitive to those changes. For the Cit+ work from Lenski's lab, I'm pretty confident that later experiments out of Lenski's lab will either more solidly confirm or ultimately reject the conclusions of the Blount paper. The best data will come from sequencing work being planned now. But at least for now, I think theirs is a reasonable conclusion, given what they've encountered so far. YMMV.

::::::::::::Of course, imagine the better quality dialog you might have had if you'd waited until now to contact Lenski with specific questions based on a thorough reading of paper. In any case, as I mentioned previously (message now gone), if you're convinced of what you've written, by all means please fire off your letter --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Argon, I find your comments to be incoherent. You've already been blocked once for your endless, uninformative talk, and if you post more rants rather than contributing to this encyclopedia then your account will be blocked permanently. Godspeed to you if you decide to leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.

:: Monte Carlo resampling will often result in small p values for rarely observed events, and it is error to use that technique to draw conclusions in such circumstances. By the way, I don't accept that approach for analyzing the Third Experiment. The data in the Third Experiment are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: In your own words, "your reply... is unresponsive to the flaw." Would you care to reference that statement about Monte Carlo resampling? Why don't you accept that approach for analyzing the third experiment- would you care to explain that statement or keep repeating it? And what statistical calculations can you present to support how the data for the third experiment are consistent with the null hypothesis? You complain about others' flawed statistics yet your statistics are strangely absent.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If you can formalize your objection to the Monte Carlo resampling, then by all means do so and include it in the letter - with a reference, if possible. This is an honest suggestion, not sarcasm. Something along the lines of 'With one million resamplings without replacement, the Monte Carlo technique will potentially underestimate the p-value by x% if the probability of an event is below y; see Statistician et al, 1997'. If you're basing your acceptance of the null hypothesis on some other statistical technique that gives you some other p-value, then you should report the technique and the p-value. If you think that the Monte Carlo technique gives a lower bound to the p-value, such that it must be higher than 0.08, then say so.

:::Although the P-value for the third experiment was not equal to or less than the arbitrary 0.05, but was instead 0.0823, this is still not consistent with the null hypothesis. Consider the alternative perspective- if you're 91.77% confident in deviation from the null hypothesis (based on P=0.0823), then conversely you could say that you are 8.23% confident that the null hypothesis was verified. To have been consistent with the null hypothesis, the P-value for the third experiment would have been in the ballpark of P=0.95. Thus a P-value of 0.0823 is nowhere near supporting the alternative hypothesis.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::::The null hypothesis does not have to be proven; it is assumed to be true by default. The burden is on the experimenter to '''disprove''' the null hypothesis. The 0.05 point is a historical accident and is arbitrary, but hallowed by long use. There may be only an 8% chance that the null hypothesis is correct in the third replay, but that's enough. That doesn't detract from the fact that the combination of replay experiments was highly significant.

::::It is interesting to note that the results for the second and third replays were presented in such a way as to minimize the number of times that an individual cell mutated to Cit+; the data are presented as "''independent'' Cit+ mutants". It is mentioned that in the third replay 7 of the 8 plates gave rise to multiple Cit+ colonies, which was attributed to a two-mutation process; one of which took place during the population growth phase and one that took place after the bacteria were plated. Had the results been reported as 'number of Cit+ colonies formed', the mutations would have 'appeared' to scale better. I'm not arguing that the data should have been presented that way - I think that the inter-replay scaling is a red herring. It would also have made it impossible to include the first replay, since in that setting it was impossible to state just how many times the Cit+ trait arose independently in those cultures - almost certainly just once per culture, but not provably. What matters is that the intra-replay pattern of Cit+ mutation was the same across 3 different experimental setups. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:05, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:4)It was not 'an error' to include later generations in the replay experiments, because those generations provide information that bears on the contingency hypothesis- they can indicate if the contingency 'window' closes. It would be a valid request that the authors provide an explicit description of the techniques used to exclude the presence of occult Cit+ cells from the samples used in the replay experiments. At some point you will have to accept or reject that it is ''possible'' to do so, routinely, using basic laboratory techniques. If you accept that it is possible, the only way to prove that the routine procedures failed is to repeat the experiment with more rigorous controls and show a different result. Otherwise your objection boils down to "because I said so". If you reject categorically that it is possible to screen all Cit+ cells out, then all of microbiology comes into question, because these are truly fundamental techniques used across thousands of labs for many, many years.

:: Your analysis here is absurd. Trace Cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation, and it's foolish to claim otherwise. It was error to include these generations in the data, and there was no valid reason to do so. The potentiating mutation, if any, would have occurred earlier! Indeed, it occurred before the 20,000th generation according to Lenski's own analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::You completely missed the point of Brossa's comment and again only keep repeating yourself without elaborating. Do you have experience employing the bacteriological methods referred to?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::The statement that trace cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation requires that there are no techniques to remove them from the mixed-population sample. As others have told you, these techniques do exist and are reliable. You can request that PNAS publish exactly what technique was used (most likely dilution and plating on an indicator medium). Your option then is either to attack the method (difficult, since the techniques have been around for a very long time) or the execution (which would require that you or someone else repeat the experiment with the same technique and obtain different results).
:::Or, taking a different tack - the paper states that it is impossible to exlude an origin for Cit+ that is earlier than the 31,000th generation. So how many generations prior to 31,000 should have been eliminated from the replay?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

:5)This point is, in my opinion, the worst of the lot, mostly because it is meaningless - what does 'combined based on outcome rather than sample size' mean?- but also because it restates the claim in #3, that there was some problem with the technique used to combine the three experiments into a final p-value. If you object to the Z-transformation method, you should state why; if you object to the result, you should be able to say what you think the result should be - with a different p-number that you calculate yourself.

:: The hypothesis of a mutation rate is obviously dependent on sample size, yet the paper combined the results of experiments having vastly different sample sizes as though that did not matter. Point 5 illustrates that the self-contradiction of the statistical analysis in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Again, show what you think is wrong by showing statistically what should have been done and what numerical results should have been obtained. Recall the bridge analogy, if you read it.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: The combination of samples of different sizes is standard practice in the sciences - so you must be objecting to the particular technique used. If you object to the Z-method, state your reasons in the letter. If you have a preferred method, state it in the letter and defend it. Best of all, use your preferred method and present your results. By 'the hypothesis of a mutation rate', are you referring to the calculations of mutation rates? Because the data for those calculations were not obtained from the three replay experiments.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I would hope that you would at least run this letter past a sympathetic scientist (someone from DI?) before you submit it, to confirm that these concerns are in a legitimate format.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:10, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Oh how you cling to the views of others! Logic does not depend on what some think, or the perception of what some think. The readers of this page are smart enough to look at the logic and admit the truth. So are you. Rest assured that logic does not care that some reject it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh how you cling to your views! The problem with logic is that it only works with knowledge- almost all of the replies on this page have been trying to teach you something about microbiology and/or statistical analysis but you are convinced you understand it better than those who have many years of experience working with them, although you continue to misinterpret basic concepts covered in any undergraduate microbiology, genetics or statistics course. Where is the logic in ignoring the input of all those who have actual training and experience in the fields you are discussing? How is that having an "open mind"?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, how I cling to the views of others! Yes, which is why I have an accountant and an attorney and a doctor and a statistician and an architect - I accept that other people have greater experience and knowledge in certain areas than I do. If I want to charge my lawyer with malpractice, it behooves me to check with another lawyer to see if my complaint has merit, or if I'm even articulating the complaint correctly before I show up in a courtroom.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I wasn’t planning on making any more comments, but in perusing other articles on this site I found that part of the Atheism article reminded me of Brossa’s comment:

:::::“Christian apologist JP Holding rightly states that Bible exegesis and Bible exposition is a multi-disciplinary pursuit, and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required to make an allegation regarding the Bible. Holding states the following:

:::::““Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.

:::::"I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.

:::::"It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

:::::"Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrefutable Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves [''sic''] our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.””

::::Now let’s change the academic subject (I leave out the introductory paragraph of Holding’s quote):

:::::“Whenever you run across any person who criticizes ''scientific reports'', claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to '''earn''' it from you. Here's why.

:::::"It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of ''microbiology and evolutionary biology''-- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any ''field of science'' -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

:::::"Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a '''website in his spare time''' titled ''7 Irrefutable Richard Lenski Study Flaws''? Do these persons deserve our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.”

::::I do not post this as satire or mockery, but as another serious attempt to provide perspective. Ironic that Holding’s quote is in an article on Conservapedia, which at the same time is rightly concerned about double standards.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

::Brossa has made several excellent points. I would add that there is a disconnect between your primary claim and the list. You should rethink your thesis statement or choose different "flaws" that fit it better, since your primary claim that the flaws "negate [the paper's] claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation" does not follow from those listed. With your flaws, with the possible exception of #4 depending on interpretation (and even then, where did the undetected Cit+ cells come from?), you are arguing against historical contingency, not whether or not Cit+ cells evolved. In other words, the flaws you claim are questions of mechanism, i.e. the dynamics of how the Cit+ cells arose, but your thesis statement questions whether or not they arose at all from Cit- populations. So even if those flaws were true, they would not negate the "evolutionary beneficial mutation" as you say but rather just historical contingency as a path to it. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:23, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, point #2 indicates that the paper's data disprove any plausible mutation rate, because the mutations did not scale with sample size. Point #2 thereby negates the claim of "an evolutionary beneficial mutation" as insisted by the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::See my above post regarding scaling of mutation rate. As for disproving "any plausible mutation rate", are you referring just to Cit+ variants, or truly ''any'' mutation rate? If the former, where do you propose the Cit+ cells came from in the first place, and if the latter, see my above post about basic microbiology. Also, your letter claims that flaw #2 disproves a ''fixed'' mutation rate, not, as you just said, ''any'' mutation rate. So which are you claiming?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==Is this correct?==
''"The following flaws in this PNAS paper negate its claim that E. Coli bacteria evolved through a beneficial mutation"'' Flaws in an argument would tend to put the conclusion in doubt rather than show it to be false. Is the assertion that Lenski has not proved his point or that the data and methodology prove his point is false? This sentence reads to me to be asserting the latter. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 12:36, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: As explained here, several of the flaws do disprove some of the paper's assertions. For example, the Third Experiment disproves the contingency hypothesis as depicted in Figure 3. Also, the failure of the mutations to scale demonstrates that there is not a fixed mutation central to the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

==Word Count==
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Completion of the cc: list==

I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with what you have said. I think we should send out a separate letter to the congresspeople. There are two separate, though very related issues. The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part). Lets address the first problem before we look at the second. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: If the letter should find a broader audience, I would find i terribly interesting what the scientific advisors of the presidential candidates have to say about this. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Link in Letter==
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me - good idea. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. Also, we should completely check all of the sources and make sure each is completely verified, because we don't want are argument to be made less credible by some silly mistakes. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:02, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Availability of data==
The comment about the availability of data should be removed. The PNAS guidelines for letters [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml] state that letters must not include "accusations of misconduct". They have a separate procedure for issues regarding data and material availability. ("Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials").--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

: I thought about this, but PNAS can simply omit the sentence at the end upon publication. It seems unnecessary and inappropriate to break this letter into two separate ones just for one sentence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::It seems more inappropriate to knowingly submit something to PNAS that is against their guidelines and then expecting them to edit the unacceptable comment out on their end. I'd suggest that the "PNAS Letters" submission will be taken more credibly if we respect their guidelines, and instead send the version with the "withholding data" accusation to the appropriate parties separately, and copy PNAS as a courtesy. My grandfather told me I'd never regret taking the high road, and 40-plus years later his advice has served me well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree fully with DinsdaleP especially because i doubt that they may edit something out. i could imagine some copyright reasons will contradict that. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==My sixpenn'orth==
I think this reads very sharply and is a pretty punchy 250 words worth - I know it's difficult to express complicated ideas so concisely. A couple of very minor, nitpicky comments: should Lenski's article have its PNAS edition/page citation in brackets? And I'd thought the Editor of PNAS would not be a cc, but the principal recipient.

Congratulations to Andy and all who contributed to this. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for your suggestions, which I've incorporated and addressed. Godspeed to you, Bugler!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mailing==
Has it been sent yet?--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 11:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

: Not yet. I had to tend to some other duties recently. Any more suggestions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::This is a very interesting letter. I would love to see how Lenski wriggles out of these points. However, unless it is sent soon I fear the topicality of the original will be lost and it will be buried away somewhere. I hope it gets sent very soon. Regards, [[User:AckerLite|AckerLite]] 10:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affiliations ==

I think the affiliation line is inappropriate, since it should not contain a job description, but the organization under which the reasearcher carries out his research (as a matter of fact i cant figure out the legal structure of conservapedia). In this case it could be no affiliation or Mr. Schlaflys Employer. As far as i understand (see the conservapedia video), conservapedia was founded by Mr. Schlafly as an additional resource to his educational work. As far as i understand he carries out his function as a teacher of precollege students in relation to the Eagle forum university (please correct me if this is wrong), which would make this his affiliation.

: I am correcting you because your comment about Eagle Forum and my teaching program for precollege students is baseless and wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, just for interest and avoiding future misunderstandings: The course advertised on the webpage of the Eagle forum University ([http://www.eagleforumu.org/eagleforumu/ Eagle Forum University]), led by you is then different from your "pre-college" teacher duties. Did i get it right? Or does eagle Forum University purely advertise for external courses? Anyway i think the discussions here have come to a dead point, so i think it would be good if you make up your mind to send the letter. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:23, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Many people volunteer and provide course material to Eagle Forum University, a free site that welcomes learners of all ages. It's amusing how some liberals pretend there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy," or something like it, every thing someone points out how wrong a liberal statement or action is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::For one who often complains of insulting comments from others, that was an unnecessarily hostile response. The line "please correct me if this is wrong" was straightforwardly ''asking'' for clarification. The appropriate response would have --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)been, "My function as a teacher is not carried out in association with the Eagle Forum, so listing that as my affiliation would be inaccurate." It didn't warrant such an accusatory tone. That's the second time you've had a reaction like that to the Eagle Forum even being mentioned. Please read before you judge.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:54, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::: The conspiracy theories by liberals about conservatives are tiresome, and the liberal denials when confronted with the baseless errors are even worse. Wikipedia is filled with such junk, claiming that anyone the liberals disagree with is a creationist, a John Birch Society member, or some cultist. When the errors are removed, they reappear again and again, without apology by the people who make the errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::He's only asking if you're affiliated with you mother's organization. It's a fair question, it seems to me, and not a very far leap of logic. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:57, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Corry is correct- it was ''just a question''. And there are five problems with Aschlafly's response, all baseless claims of his own: 1) Where is the conspiracy theory he refers to (affiliation and conspiracy are not synonymous)? 2) Where is the denial of his correction that he is not affiliated with [won't mention the name since three out of three times it has been even mentioned, there have been very hostile responses]? There- I acknowledge that there is no affiliation with said other organization. 3) How did the original affiliations comment or my posts indicate political leanings (I in fact do not fit Aschlafly's description of liberals)? 4)What exactly was the error? "As far as I understand it" followed by "please correct me if I'm wrong" are not hallmarks of "baseless claims". The post simply demonstrated and incorrect understanding and a desire to assess its accuracy, a very rational approach. 5) What do any of Aschlafly's disagreements with Wikipedia have to do with being ''asked'' about affiliations on this site?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, you got my question wrong. I honestly don't know if you teach your class in some kind of bigger structure (and it is not stated here in conservapedia). And i also don't know what legal status conservapedia has (or how its funded). However, your job title should not appear in the affiliations line. If your work leading to this letter was carried out in any organization bigger than just yourself, this is the right thing to go into the affiliations line. If you (seems to be tha case) did this completely on your own behalf, i think i would skip the affiliation. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Stich75 has it correct. "Teacher of pre-college students" is not an affiliation but a job title. Is "www.conservapedia.com" the actual name of the affiliated organization or is it something like 'Conservapedia, Inc.'--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:02, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't think the affiliation really adds or subtracts from the letter. It's more or less a formality, continuing to discuss it rather diverts attention from the main issue and we're seriously in danger of falling out over it. ''"Anyway i think the discussions here have come to a dead point, so i think it would be good if you make up your mind to send the letter."'' Agreed 100%, if the letter isn't "near enough" right now then it will never be.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Agreed. Pull the trigger and see whose foot gets shot.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Progress ==

I think there should be a timeline for this, like when the letter was sent, was a confirmation received and if so when. Also When a publication date is scheduled - if they dare do it. [[User:AckerLite|AckerLite]] 14:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

The Daily Show

2008-08-08T18:24:29Z

AckerLite: links & spacing

'''''The Daily Show''''' is a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It is known for its comedic satire of the news and has won several awards, including a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy|Emmys]].<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>

== Early Years ==

The show was originally hosted by [[Craig Kilborn]], but in 1998 [[Jon Stewart]] replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on ''The Daily Show'' ==

Jon Stewart is currently the host of Comedy Central's ''The Daily Show''. He often satirizes the [[George W. Bush|President]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], [[United States Congress|Congress]], and [[United States]] foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which [[politicians]] look silly, often contradicting themselves, or showing [[Senate]] speeches that seem ridiculous.

== Correspondents ==

The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news stories". The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by [[mockery|mocking]] of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights and the [[pro-life]] movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God", satirizes [[religious]] values, and [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] favorably compared Conservapedia's "[[Homosexuality]]" article to [[Wikipedia]]'s, calling it "way more interesting".

== References ==

<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}

[[category:Television Shows]]

Ted Stevens

2008-08-01T15:19:10Z

AckerLite: copyedit

[[Image:Stevens.jpg|right|thumb|Ted Stevens]]

'''Theodore Fulton "Ted" Stevens''' (born November 18, 1923) is the senior [[United States Senate|United States Senator]] from [[Alaska]]. He is a [[liberal]] [[Republican Party|Republican]] having a pro-[[abortion]] voting record. Among [[conservatives]] he is known as a "[[RINO]]" who has long favored more government spending, particularly for his own state.<ref>Stevens' lifetime ACU rating is only 64.45, far lower than [[John McCain]]'s rating of 82.16. Most [[conservatives]] rank over 90 on this rating.</ref>

As the longest serving [[Republican]] in the Senate, Stevens served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate from January 3, 2003, to January 3, 2007. Stevens chaired the Senate [[Appropriations Committee]] from 1997 to 2005, except for the 18 months when [[Democrat]]s controlled the chamber. The chairmanship gave Stevens considerable influence over fellow Senators, who relied on him for home-state project funds.

Stevens has a six-decade career of public service, beginning with his service in [[World War II]]. In the 1950s, he held senior positions in the Interior and Justice departments during the [[Eisenhower]] administration. He has served continuously in the Senate since 1968.

On July 29, 2008, Stevens was indicted on 7 counts related to making false statements in relation to a Justice Department investigation of business dealings in Alaska. According to Republican Senate caucus rules, Stevens will have to step down from his post as ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

==Early years==

Ted Stevens was born in [[Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]], in 1923. During World War II, he was an Army Air Forces C-47 pilot in the China-Burma-India theater with the "Flying Tigers" of the Fourteenth Air Force from 1943 to 1946, holding the rank of First Lieutenant. There he received two Distinguished [[Flying Cross]]es and two [[Air Medal]]s, as well as the [[Yuan Hai]] medal awarded by the Republic of [[China]].

After the war, Stevens attended UCLA, where he was a member of [[Delta Kappa Epsilon]], and [[Harvard Law School]]. In the early 1950s he moved to Alaska, then a territory.

In Fairbanks, Stevens practiced law, and he was appointed U.S. Attorney for Fairbanks in 1953.

In 1956, Stevens was transferred to Washington, D.C., where he worked as legislative counsel and assistant to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. He also pushed for the statehood of Alaska and Hawaii, which occurred in 1959. In 1960, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower promoted Stevens to solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

After returning to Alaska, Stevens practiced law in Anchorage. He was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1964, and became House majority leader in his second term.

==U.S. Senate==

In December 1968, Governor Walter Joseph Hickel appointed Stevens to the U.S. Senate after the death of Democrat Bob Bartlett. In 1970, Stevens was elected to finish the term in a special election, and has been reelected six times since, in 1972, 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2002. His current term will expire in 2009.

Stevens served as the Assistant Republican Whip from 1977 to 1985. In 1994, Stevens was appointed Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. Stevens became the Senate's president pro tempore when Republicans regained control of the chamber as a result of the 2002 mid-term elections, during which the previous most senior republican senator and former president pro tempore Strom Thurmond retired. He is a former Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. In the past, Stevens also has served as Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, the Arms Control Observer Group, and the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.

His campaign political action committee is called the "Northern Lights PAC."

Ted Stevens was criticized when he attempted to [[earmark]] the "Bridge to Nowhere," a bridge in Alaska which would have connected the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in a highway bill. A ferry service ran to the island, but some in the town complained about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Heritage Foundation maintained that "the Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress...fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding."<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm</ref>

In July of 2008, Stevens was indicted on charges of taking gifts from oil companies who benefited from his legislation.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/07/31/vo.stevens.court.depart.cnn?iref=videosearch Stevens pleads not guilty]</ref>

== External links ==
*[http://stevens.senate.gov/ United States Senator Ted Stevens] '''official Senate site'''
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Stevens.htm On the Issues - Ted Stevens] issue positions and quotes

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stevens, Ted}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]

Religious police

2008-08-01T15:14:58Z

AckerLite: copyedit, remove duplication

The '''Mutaween''' or '''enforcers of obedience''', usually referred to by the Western media as '''religious police''' and '''clerical police''', exist in several Islamic nations, notably [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Yemen]], [[Iran]], [[Egypt]], [[Nigeria]] though the specific name varies. [[Afghanistan]] (under the [[Taliban]]) had a similar organization. In Saudi Arabia they are known as the [[Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice]]. They consist of Islamic clerics, sometimes in the employ of the state, authorized to enforce [[Sharia]] law.

Egypt and Yemen use state-employed clerics, under the auspices of their normal police forces, to enforce state-sponsored interpretations of Islam, mostly by policing religious material found at Mosques. Some African nations (such as [[Nigeria]] and [[Sudan]]) employ similar groups with varying levels of legal authority, military authority, and connection to national government, to enforce Islamic religious law. In addition, some Muslim local (village) governments form groups (again with varying degrees of true legal authority) to enforce Islamic law.

Their duties consist of enforcing religious doctrine law as defined by the government and rooting out "Un-Islamic" activities. They have the power to arrest any unrelated males and females caught socializing. They also have the power to ban consumer products and media as "un-Islamic", such as the [[Barbie]] line of dolls and various Western musical groups and television shows. The Mutaween of Saudi Arabia recently launched a website where people can anonymously inform about "un-Islamic" activities in Saudi Arabia.

During the 19th cent., the Wahhābīs in alliance with the [[Saūd]] family began to expand territorially. Within the new kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Wahhābīs became dominant in conservative control, introducing '''mutawwiūn, ‘enforcers of obedience’, a kind of private religious police''', monitoring not only public but also private conformity to Islam (since before Allāh there is no distinction between private and public).

An incident attributed to the mutaween occurred when they prevented girls from escaping a burning building because they did not have proper headgear on. Fifteen girls died as a result. There was widespread public criticism and the Saudi government condemned the Mutaween for their actions.

In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the religious police has banned the sale of dogs and cats as well as walking them in public. Violators found outside with their pets will have them confiscated by agents of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The commission's general manager said, "If a man is caught with a pet, the pet will be immediately confiscated and the man will be forced to sign a document pledging not to repeat the act," and "If he does, he will be referred to authorities." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395341,00.html Saudi Arabia Bans Sale of Dogs and Cats in Capital in Effort to Keep Sexes Apart], Associated Press, ''Fox News Channel'', July 31, 2008</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Islam]]

Christianity

2008-08-01T15:11:56Z

AckerLite: largest faith

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the largest of the Abrahamic faiths and takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]] meaning "Jesus the Savior" and "Jesus the Anointed One". Adherents are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref> It seems that at first the [[religion]] was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in [[Antioch]] in the first century A. D. and its use spread, probably closer to mid-century since it is recorded in the [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26)

== Main Christian groups ==

The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who Catholic believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority over the Christian body of believers.

* the [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) also trace their roots back to the beginnings of Christianity, but do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]], the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 77 million baptized members) and the Lutheran World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]] could not be adequately reconciled with Papal prescriptions as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

== Christian beliefs ==
Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, [[God the Father|the Father Almighty]], Maker of [[heaven]] and [[earth]], and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the [[Holy Spirit]] and the [[Virgin Mary]], and became man. And He was crucified for us under [[Pontius Pilate]], and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the [[Bible|Scriptures]]; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the [[Resurrection]] of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine and disagree on others. According to an online Harris poll from 2003 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the [[Apostle's Creed]], [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
The God of the Christians is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. Christians reject the idea that they are polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). Though to non-Christians and even many Christians, it might seem like an inconsequential dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity is central to all of Christian theology and life. This is especially true in the relationship between God and human beings. The major theme of the Bible is love. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc. The picture that the Biblical writers draw with these words is of a lover (God) who is entirely self-sufficient, needing nothing, and a beloved (human beings) in desperate need of salvation but unable to obtain it for himself. But God the lover is willing to suffer, knows He is going to suffer, even endure death to save the beloved human beings. This love of God for human beings is an extension of the love the Three Persons in the Trinity have for each other. Each loves the others infinitely. Their love for each other and for their creation is such that the [[Apostle John]] equates God and love, in an almost mathematical way saying, "God is love."

Additionally, the God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).

===Jesus===
Christians hold that during the reign of [[Caeser Augustus]] the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the [[John the Baptist|Prophet John]], and began to preach in the area [[Palestine]]. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishment to plot Jesus death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John admitted in his Gospel.

===Jesus' Self Consciousness===

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.

Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastaions of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. {This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Book of Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

===The Atonement of Jesus on the Cross===

All Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, along with His resurrection, is an indispensable proclamation of a crucial event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to understanding His death on the cross.

# Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. Though there is ample recognition in the New Testament that others desired Him to die, and that the circumstances in which His path took him would bring Him to His end on earth, the mover of all these things was Himself and the will of the Father. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."
# Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect that way. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was forplanned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53). And so, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God".
# It was the belief in Scripture, that in His death a way back to God was made possible for those that were near to God—the Jews. And a way back to God for those that were far away—the Gentiles. That is why the New Testament saw in the requirements of God for Israel a fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. He was the perfect Israel, taken out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. And that is why the New Testament saw in Jesus, a deepness to the incarnation of the Son of God, deeper than just a Jew of His time of a certain tribe. He was the "Second Adam" to redeem the sons of Adam. This encompassing perspective had further implications.

Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself - How can I make reconciliation with my enemies, with even the members of my own family, of race with race and people with people?; Does His death for the sins of the world include those who only partially understand, for the baby aborted, the feeble minded, and severely retarded?; For those who have never heard of Jesus, never been "enlightened", distant and remote in place and time?; Does His death for the sins of the world also include a remedy for the ills that have come as a result of those sins—certain sicknesses, ills of the mind, body and the soul? Do they "hold" for today?; Does His death make good, turn to the better, show the way, effect the way, of the illnesses that have befallen the world, not only by sin, but simply by the circumstances of life, of degeneration, of compounded dysfunction? How does the fruit of His death bring in somehow the Kingdom "among us"?

The death of the Son of God on the cross has provided the solution for sin, and it still holds its sway over the imagination and aspirations for the people of our generation.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]]. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer [[John Calvin]], as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) say that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it were genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reformed Christians (often called [[Calvinists]]) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; NASB). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (A. D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history Gary Habermas is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===

The Fact of the Resurrection of Christ is a key element of the preaching of the message about Jesus and an essential of Christian belief. But there are also certain effects that this belief has on the lives of believers.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead, that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion. He was "declared to be the Son of God" by His resurrection. This brings believers in Him to a strong confidence in the determined power of God to both vindicate in their own lives and to bring His reign upon earth.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, their sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid. His resurrection, carries with it our knowledge that our sin with its attendant death has been totally and finally paid for.

4. It is a now living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life, and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully under the Spirit's control, guidance, and empowerment. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolations, and consider that even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him, a restoration, and that tears, even now, are wiped away.

== Evangelism ==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]

It should be noted, however, that Jesus said it was the Holy Spirit, not man, who was sent to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness (John 16:8). This relieves Christians of needing to worry when they evangelize. God is the one who gets the credit with the growth and maturity of the Church: "So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:7).

==See also==

'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Orthodox Church]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Christian Science]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

The Daily Show

2008-08-01T15:07:28Z

AckerLite: /* Correspondents */ Lewis Black

[[The Daily Show]] is a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It is known for its comedic satire of the news and has won several awards, including a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy|Emmys]]<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by [[Craig Kilborn]], but in 1998 [[Jon Stewart]] replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Jon Stewart is currently the host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show. He often satirizes the [[George W. Bush|President]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], [[United States Congress|Congress]], and [[United States]] foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which [[politicians]] look silly, often contradicting themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous.
== Correspondents ==

The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news stories". The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights and the [[pro-life]] movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" satires [[religious]] values, and [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref>. During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] favorably compared Conservapedia's [[Homosexuality]] article to [[Wikipedia]], calling it "way more interesting".

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}

[[category:Television Shows]]

The Daily Show

2008-08-01T15:00:28Z

AckerLite: Sentence scans better this way

[[The Daily Show]] is a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It is known for its comedic satire of the news and has won several awards, including a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy|Emmys]]<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by [[Craig Kilborn]], but in 1998 [[Jon Stewart]] replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Jon Stewart is currently the host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show. He often satirizes the [[George W. Bush|President]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], [[United States Congress|Congress]], and [[United States]] foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which [[politicians]] look silly, often contradicting themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous.
== Correspondents ==

The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news stories". The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights and the [[pro-life]] movement, or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" satires [[religious]] values, and [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}

[[category:Television Shows]]

Ann Coulter

2008-08-01T14:58:56Z

AckerLite: Undo revision 494619 by Coulterfan1 (Talk)offensive language

{{merge from|Coulter on Hillary and McCain}}
[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an [[attorney]], legal affairs correspondent, and social commentator.
She has written five bestselling books on U.S. politics. U.S. Federal Judge [[Richard Posner]] called her one of America's top public intellectuals. <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] "Data for tables in Chapter 5 of Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline" where Posner talks about the data he used for his book ''Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline''.</ref> <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] Table II, which is Posner's data for 607 public intellectuals. A PDF search of "Coulter" will show she is on Posner's list.</ref>

Coulter's primary focus is exposing the faults of [[liberalism]], and she has enjoyed a popular following for her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
She is well known for her forthright statements against those who wish to hurt the [[United States]].

Coulter is a high profile female [[conservative]], in line with [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. Her books and strong speaking style have endeared her to fans and infuriated opponents.

As a [[Christian]], Coulter attributes to the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition the view that [[human being]]s are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

Being an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and her critics often feign being offended.<ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)]</ref><ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f*****.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html]</ref>

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] for President instead of [[John McCain]]. Coulter asserted that McCain is not conservative, but [[liberal]].

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)
*''[[If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans]]'' (2007)

In ''Godless'', Coulter illustrates how liberals make a [[religion]] out of their beliefs, which they follow with the sort of intolerant zeal which they claim [[fundamentalist]]s do. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==
* "Whether they are defending the [[Soviet Union]] or bleating for [[Saddam Hussein]], liberals are always against [[United States of America|America]]. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the [[New York Times]] Building." She later clarified "Of course I regret [saying] it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to [[Darfur]], a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, [[Holocaust]]-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear [[Harry Reid]] and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in [[World War II]]. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your [[Communists]] will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." <ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001 </ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." <ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Sept. 13, 2001 she wrote this about the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|Sept. 11 terrorist attack]]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." <ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001 [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml]</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " <ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins. </ref>

* "Liberals are driven by [[Satan]] and lie constantly. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>

* "Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email Another Liberal Noose-ance], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 10/17/2007,</ref>

* "Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316 McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 11/07/2007.</ref>

* "By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet [[totalitarianism]], [[McCarthy]] shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the [[Stalin]]ist [[liberal hate speech|hate machine]] attacked him viciously and has never let up."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824 They'll Never Forgive You], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 12/05/2007.</ref>

* "How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?], By Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', October 31, 2007.</ref>

* "[The New York Times'] reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)" <ref>[http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071306.php3 ''N.Y. Times: Better dead than read]]</ref>

* "I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb] - ''Washington Post'' - March 6, 2007
*[http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2095 Media Research Center 'Funny Video's from 2007'] Watch Ann Coulter present funny videos from 2007 at the 2008 MRC DisHonors Awards in DC.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}

[[Category:Women Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-08-01T14:58:04Z

AckerLite: /* Mailing */ Soon?

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Stitch75's advice has already been disregarded, and it seems as though you have arrived at your final word choice for the letter. I think that the letter in its current state is fatally flawed and would not warrant publication by PNAS or any other reputable scientific journal. I say this not because I think that the objections raised in the letter are misguided, but because they are presented as assertions without rationale or supporting evidence. For what it's worth, I'll address the five points individually and offer suggestions to improve them:

: Your insulting tone (any other "reputable" journal) discredits yourself, but I'll respond this one time to you below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:1)Drop the complaint about Fig 3. The paper's hypothesis does not depend upon the jump in mutation rate happening at 31,000 generations; it's merely a graphical representation of the difference between the contingent hypothesis and the rare mutation hypothesis. Nobody has objected that the y-axis of the graph lacks numerical values, have they? Also, since this figure represents the hypothesis formed before the data was obtained, where ''should'' the jump have gone? It's location is arbitrary until the data is collected. The abstract and the results section state that the data supports a potentiating event at the 20,000th generation. Since the paper does state the p-value of the third replay, it's inaccurate to say that the paper fails to admit anything.

:: No scientific paper should present a graphical depiction of a falsehood, without indicating that it is false. Figure 3 suggests that the potentiating mutation occurred at the 31,000th, despite the data proving otherwise. If the authors won't correct that error, then they're unlikely to correct any other error also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It is not a falsehood; it is a hypothesis. The hypothesis must be formed before data is collected. They hypothesis was that a potentiating mutation occurred that increased the rate of mutation to Cit+. Prior to running the experiment, it is impossible to know when (or even whether) that potentiating mutation occurred. Given that, it is not an 'error' to show the jump at the 31,000th generation, or the 15,000th, or the 10,000th - any point picked for the figure is abitrary. The hypothesis was not that a potentiating mutation took place ''at the 31,000th generation''. For Lenski to put the graph jump at the 20,000th generation would imply that he got the data and then altered the original hypothesis to make it a perfect fit with the results - and ''that'' would be an ethical breach. The data collected suggest that the hypothesis was correct in that a potentiating mutation took place - and they further suggest that this mutation took place at about the 20k generation point. This does not disprove fig 3; it refines it. Again, you may as well object that fig 3 doesn't provide numerical values on the y-axis.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

:2)This point is where I think your best argument lies, but it should be restated along the lines of: the null hypothesis suggests a fixed mutation rate rather than historical contingency. However, the largest replay experiment did not demonstrate the expected increase in Cit+ mutations, and was consistent with the null hypothesis with a p-value of 0.0823 by the Monte Carlo test method.

:: Your reply to the second point is unresponsive to the flaw. You seem to completely misunderstand it, or hope others do. Any fixed "mutation rate" should scale with sample size, yet the data prove otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Previous comment removed by [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The paper plainly states, "The third replay experiment was similar in design to the second, but on a larger scale." So I don't know why you imply that the experiments were significantly different. Yet the results from the second and third experiments do NOT scale with sample size, thereby disproving any plausible type of fixed mutation rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Sorry- I reread the supporting materials and methods and you are correct about the experimental conditions. Perhaps I was confusing with the first; I don't know. In any case I have retracted the comment.

::::: Nonetheless, claiming that the lack of expected scaling disproves the entire paper is still an unsupported methodological leap. The point is that based on the good P-values, the Cit+ clones arose later than expected in all three replays (independent of one another) based on the mathematical model of the null hypothesis. Thus it was apparently not a single, fortuitous and completely random event. I explain that under #3 below as it is better suited to that section.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The third replay experiment was similar in design but clearly, not the same in some aspects. As I noted previously, their plating densities were higher in the third experiment. That was an change in the experimental conditions. Blount et al. noted that the results produced a smaller number of mutants than expected -- assuming the conditions really were comparable -- but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:52, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You write, "but apparently, the conditions were not effectively the same." That's known as circular reasoning. You can't accept that the mutations do not scale, and so you insist that somehow the conditions "apparently" must have been significantly different. Under your approach, you'd insist there must have been a significant difference in the experiments no matter what the evidence is or what the paper says (it says they were similar).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::At a basic level Argon’s argument is not circular. Any appearance of circularity arises from ambiguous wording in the last clause in his statement.

::::::::We have three propositions:

::::::::1. If the conditions were the same the same then the results would be the same (“if C then R”)
::::::::2. The results were not the same (“R”)
::::::::3. The conditions were the same (“C”)

::::::::These three premises are inconsistent. That being so, you can set any two of three as the premises and negate the third as the conclusion. The second proposition is not an issue: all are agreed that the results were not the same (did not scale). So the question is do we accept the first proposition and reject the third or do we accept the third and reject the first? That is to say do we argue:

::::::::'''First argument:'''
::::::::C
::::::::Not-R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-if C then R

::::::::Or do we argue:

::::::::'''Second argument'''
::::::::If C then R
::::::::Not R
::::::::Conclusion: Not-C

::::::::Neither argument is circular (does not have its conclusion as part of its premises). The choice between them may be arbitrary but what we have is a lack of corroboration of the disputed premises (“If C then R” and “C”).

::::::::Except that we do have alternative corroboration for the conclusion of the second argument and the negation of a premise in the first argument: “Not-C” is specifically stated in the paper, necessitating rejection of the first argument.

::::::::If you reject the first argument on the basis of the second argument then it would be circular (you conclude “Not-C”, thus you reject the first argument, thus you adopt the second, thus you conclude “Not-C”, which is where you started from). Whether Argon has done that depends on what “apparently” refers to. If it refers to the paper saying it was not the same then it isn’t circular. The argument is

::::::::the paper says “Not-C”,
::::::::thus you reject the first argument,
::::::::thus you adopt the second,
::::::::thus you conclude “Not-C”

::::::::“Not-C” does not support “the paper says “Not-C”” and the circularity is broken.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:07, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.

:: Monte Carlo resampling will often result in small p values for rarely observed events, and it is error to use that technique to draw conclusions in such circumstances. By the way, I don't accept that approach for analyzing the Third Experiment. The data in the Third Experiment are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: In your own words, "your reply... is unresponsive to the flaw." Would you care to reference that statement about Monte Carlo resampling? Why don't you accept that approach for analyzing the third experiment- would you care to explain that statement or keep repeating it? And what statistical calculations can you present to support how the data for the third experiment are consistent with the null hypothesis? You complain about others' flawed statistics yet your statistics are strangely absent.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If you can formalize your objection to the Monte Carlo resampling, then by all means do so and include it in the letter - with a reference, if possible. This is an honest suggestion, not sarcasm. Something along the lines of 'With one million resamplings without replacement, the Monte Carlo technique will potentially underestimate the p-value by x% if the probability of an event is below y; see Statistician et al, 1997'. If you're basing your acceptance of the null hypothesis on some other statistical technique that gives you some other p-value, then you should report the technique and the p-value. If you think that the Monte Carlo technique gives a lower bound to the p-value, such that it must be higher than 0.08, then say so.

:::Although the P-value for the third experiment was not equal to or less than the arbitrary 0.05, but was instead 0.0823, this is still not consistent with the null hypothesis. Consider the alternative perspective- if you're 91.77% confident in deviation from the null hypothesis (based on P=0.0823), then conversely you could say that you are 8.23% confident that the null hypothesis was verified. To have been consistent with the null hypothesis, the P-value for the third experiment would have been in the ballpark of P=0.95. Thus a P-value of 0.0823 is nowhere near supporting the alternative hypothesis.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::::The null hypothesis does not have to be proven; it is assumed to be true by default. The burden is on the experimenter to '''disprove''' the null hypothesis. The 0.05 point is a historical accident and is arbitrary, but hallowed by long use. There may be only an 8% chance that the null hypothesis is correct in the third replay, but that's enough. That doesn't detract from the fact that the combination of replay experiments was highly significant.

::::It is interesting to note that the results for the second and third replays were presented in such a way as to minimize the number of times that an individual cell mutated to Cit+; the data are presented as "''independent'' Cit+ mutants". It is mentioned that in the third replay 7 of the 8 plates gave rise to multiple Cit+ colonies, which was attributed to a two-mutation process; one of which took place during the population growth phase and one that took place after the bacteria were plated. Had the results been reported as 'number of Cit+ colonies formed', the mutations would have 'appeared' to scale better. I'm not arguing that the data should have been presented that way - I think that the inter-replay scaling is a red herring. It would also have made it impossible to include the first replay, since in that setting it was impossible to state just how many times the Cit+ trait arose independently in those cultures - almost certainly just once per culture, but not provably. What matters is that the intra-replay pattern of Cit+ mutation was the same across 3 different experimental setups. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:05, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:4)It was not 'an error' to include later generations in the replay experiments, because those generations provide information that bears on the contingency hypothesis- they can indicate if the contingency 'window' closes. It would be a valid request that the authors provide an explicit description of the techniques used to exclude the presence of occult Cit+ cells from the samples used in the replay experiments. At some point you will have to accept or reject that it is ''possible'' to do so, routinely, using basic laboratory techniques. If you accept that it is possible, the only way to prove that the routine procedures failed is to repeat the experiment with more rigorous controls and show a different result. Otherwise your objection boils down to "because I said so". If you reject categorically that it is possible to screen all Cit+ cells out, then all of microbiology comes into question, because these are truly fundamental techniques used across thousands of labs for many, many years.

:: Your analysis here is absurd. Trace Cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation, and it's foolish to claim otherwise. It was error to include these generations in the data, and there was no valid reason to do so. The potentiating mutation, if any, would have occurred earlier! Indeed, it occurred before the 20,000th generation according to Lenski's own analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::You completely missed the point of Brossa's comment and again only keep repeating yourself without elaborating. Do you have experience employing the bacteriological methods referred to?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::The statement that trace cit+ cells inevitably existed after the 31,000th generation requires that there are no techniques to remove them from the mixed-population sample. As others have told you, these techniques do exist and are reliable. You can request that PNAS publish exactly what technique was used (most likely dilution and plating on an indicator medium). Your option then is either to attack the method (difficult, since the techniques have been around for a very long time) or the execution (which would require that you or someone else repeat the experiment with the same technique and obtain different results).
:::Or, taking a different tack - the paper states that it is impossible to exlude an origin for Cit+ that is earlier than the 31,000th generation. So how many generations prior to 31,000 should have been eliminated from the replay?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

:5)This point is, in my opinion, the worst of the lot, mostly because it is meaningless - what does 'combined based on outcome rather than sample size' mean?- but also because it restates the claim in #3, that there was some problem with the technique used to combine the three experiments into a final p-value. If you object to the Z-transformation method, you should state why; if you object to the result, you should be able to say what you think the result should be - with a different p-number that you calculate yourself.

:: The hypothesis of a mutation rate is obviously dependent on sample size, yet the paper combined the results of experiments having vastly different sample sizes as though that did not matter. Point 5 illustrates that the self-contradiction of the statistical analysis in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Again, show what you think is wrong by showing statistically what should have been done and what numerical results should have been obtained. Recall the bridge analogy, if you read it.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: The combination of samples of different sizes is standard practice in the sciences - so you must be objecting to the particular technique used. If you object to the Z-method, state your reasons in the letter. If you have a preferred method, state it in the letter and defend it. Best of all, use your preferred method and present your results. By 'the hypothesis of a mutation rate', are you referring to the calculations of mutation rates? Because the data for those calculations were not obtained from the three replay experiments.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I would hope that you would at least run this letter past a sympathetic scientist (someone from DI?) before you submit it, to confirm that these concerns are in a legitimate format.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:10, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Oh how you cling to the views of others! Logic does not depend on what some think, or the perception of what some think. The readers of this page are smart enough to look at the logic and admit the truth. So are you. Rest assured that logic does not care that some reject it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh how you cling to your views! The problem with logic is that it only works with knowledge- almost all of the replies on this page have been trying to teach you something about microbiology and/or statistical analysis but you are convinced you understand it better than those who have many years of experience working with them, although you continue to misinterpret basic concepts covered in any undergraduate microbiology, genetics or statistics course. Where is the logic in ignoring the input of all those who have actual training and experience in the fields you are discussing? How is that having an "open mind"?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, how I cling to the views of others! Yes, which is why I have an accountant and an attorney and a doctor and a statistician and an architect - I accept that other people have greater experience and knowledge in certain areas than I do. If I want to charge my lawyer with malpractice, it behooves me to check with another lawyer to see if my complaint has merit, or if I'm even articulating the complaint correctly before I show up in a courtroom.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I wasn’t planning on making any more comments, but in perusing other articles on this site I found that part of the Atheism article reminded me of Brossa’s comment:

:::::“Christian apologist JP Holding rightly states that Bible exegesis and Bible exposition is a multi-disciplinary pursuit, and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required to make an allegation regarding the Bible. Holding states the following:

:::::““Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.

:::::"I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.

:::::"It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

:::::"Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrefutable Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves [''sic''] our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.””

::::Now let’s change the academic subject (I leave out the introductory paragraph of Holding’s quote):

:::::“Whenever you run across any person who criticizes ''scientific reports'', claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to '''earn''' it from you. Here's why.

:::::"It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of ''microbiology and evolutionary biology''-- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any ''field of science'' -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

:::::"Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a '''website in his spare time''' titled ''7 Irrefutable Richard Lenski Study Flaws''? Do these persons deserve our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.”

::::I do not post this as satire or mockery, but as another serious attempt to provide perspective. Ironic that Holding’s quote is in an article on Conservapedia, which at the same time is rightly concerned about double standards.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

::Brossa has made several excellent points. I would add that there is a disconnect between your primary claim and the list. You should rethink your thesis statement or choose different "flaws" that fit it better, since your primary claim that the flaws "negate [the paper's] claim that E. Coli bacteria underwent an evolutionary beneficial mutation" does not follow from those listed. With your flaws, with the possible exception of #4 depending on interpretation (and even then, where did the undetected Cit+ cells come from?), you are arguing against historical contingency, not whether or not Cit+ cells evolved. In other words, the flaws you claim are questions of mechanism, i.e. the dynamics of how the Cit+ cells arose, but your thesis statement questions whether or not they arose at all from Cit- populations. So even if those flaws were true, they would not negate the "evolutionary beneficial mutation" as you say but rather just historical contingency as a path to it. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:23, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, point #2 indicates that the paper's data disprove any plausible mutation rate, because the mutations did not scale with sample size. Point #2 thereby negates the claim of "an evolutionary beneficial mutation" as insisted by the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::See my above post regarding scaling of mutation rate. As for disproving "any plausible mutation rate", are you referring just to Cit+ variants, or truly ''any'' mutation rate? If the former, where do you propose the Cit+ cells came from in the first place, and if the latter, see my above post about basic microbiology. Also, your letter claims that flaw #2 disproves a ''fixed'' mutation rate, not, as you just said, ''any'' mutation rate. So which are you claiming?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

==Word Count==
Is the 250 limit for the body text - the 'meat' of the letter? Or everything? [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 11:42, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: I believe it applies only to the Text portion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Completion of the cc: list==

I don't think it's appropriate to submit without specific names in the cc: list. If those were meant to be placeholders then they need to be filled in ASAP. Also, the inclusion of congressional representatives overseeing funding does nothing but add an implied threatening tone to the submission. If this is about questioning his science as reported in the PNAS, then let's keep it focused there - PNAS has nothing to do with the funding of his research and this detracts from the focus of this submission. For that reason, I'm also removing the "refusal to provide data" line from this text, because it's out of the scope for what should be discussed with PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with what you have said. I think we should send out a separate letter to the congresspeople. There are two separate, though very related issues. The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part). Lets address the first problem before we look at the second. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: If the letter should find a broader audience, I would find i terribly interesting what the scientific advisors of the presidential candidates have to say about this. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Link in Letter==
Andy or any of the other sysops: I think it would be a very good idea if you locked the page which the letter refers too. This is necessary, because the last thing we want is to be embarrassed by liberal vandalism that does not reflect what Conservapedia is really about. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me - good idea. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:59, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks. Also, we should completely check all of the sources and make sure each is completely verified, because we don't want are argument to be made less credible by some silly mistakes. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 17:02, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Availability of data==
The comment about the availability of data should be removed. The PNAS guidelines for letters [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml] state that letters must not include "accusations of misconduct". They have a separate procedure for issues regarding data and material availability. ("Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials").--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

: I thought about this, but PNAS can simply omit the sentence at the end upon publication. It seems unnecessary and inappropriate to break this letter into two separate ones just for one sentence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::It seems more inappropriate to knowingly submit something to PNAS that is against their guidelines and then expecting them to edit the unacceptable comment out on their end. I'd suggest that the "PNAS Letters" submission will be taken more credibly if we respect their guidelines, and instead send the version with the "withholding data" accusation to the appropriate parties separately, and copy PNAS as a courtesy. My grandfather told me I'd never regret taking the high road, and 40-plus years later his advice has served me well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree fully with DinsdaleP especially because i doubt that they may edit something out. i could imagine some copyright reasons will contradict that. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==My sixpenn'orth==
I think this reads very sharply and is a pretty punchy 250 words worth - I know it's difficult to express complicated ideas so concisely. A couple of very minor, nitpicky comments: should Lenski's article have its PNAS edition/page citation in brackets? And I'd thought the Editor of PNAS would not be a cc, but the principal recipient.

Congratulations to Andy and all who contributed to this. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for your suggestions, which I've incorporated and addressed. Godspeed to you, Bugler!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mailing==
Has it been sent yet?--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 11:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

: Not yet. I had to tend to some other duties recently. Any more suggestions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::This is a very interesting letter. I would love to see how Lenski wriggles out of these points. However, unless it is sent soon I fear the topicality of the original will be lost and it will be buried away somewhere. I hope it gets sent very soon. Regards, [[User:AckerLite|AckerLite]] 10:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affiliations ==

I think the affiliation line is inappropriate, since it should not contain a job description, but the organization under which the reasearcher carries out his research (as a matter of fact i cant figure out the legal structure of conservapedia). In this case it could be no affiliation or Mr. Schlaflys Employer. As far as i understand (see the conservapedia video), conservapedia was founded by Mr. Schlafly as an additional resource to his educational work. As far as i understand he carries out his function as a teacher of precollege students in relation to the Eagle forum university (please correct me if this is wrong), which would make this his affiliation.

: I am correcting you because your comment about Eagle Forum and my teaching program for precollege students is baseless and wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::For one who often complains of insulting comments from others, that was an unnecessarily hostile response. The line "please correct me if this is wrong" was straightforwardly ''asking'' for clarification. The appropriate response would have --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)been, "My function as a teacher is not carried out in association with the Eagle Forum, so listing that as my affiliation would be inaccurate." It didn't warrant such an accusatory tone. That's the second time you've had a reaction like that to the Eagle Forum even being mentioned. Please read before you judge.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:54, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::: The conspiracy theories by liberals about conservatives are tiresome, and the liberal denials when confronted with the baseless errors are even worse. Wikipedia is filled with such junk, claiming that anyone the liberals disagree with is a creationist, a John Birch Society member, or some cultist. When the errors are removed, they reappear again and again, without apology by the people who make the errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::He's only asking if you're affiliated with you mother's organization. It's a fair question, it seems to me, and not a very far leap of logic. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:57, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Corry is correct- it was ''just a question''. And there are five problems with Aschlafly's response, all baseless claims of his own: 1) Where is the conspiracy theory he refers to (affiliation and conspiracy are not synonymous)? 2) Where is the denial of his correction that he is not affiliated with [won't mention the name since three out of three times it has been even mentioned, there have been very hostile responses]? There- I acknowledge that there is no affiliation with said other organization. 3) How did the original affiliations comment or my posts indicate political leanings (I in fact do not fit Aschlafly's description of liberals)? 4)What exactly was the error? "As far as I understand it" followed by "please correct me if I'm wrong" are not hallmarks of "baseless claims". The post simply demonstrated and incorrect understanding and a desire to assess its accuracy, a very rational approach. 5) What do any of Aschlafly's disagreements with Wikipedia have to do with being ''asked'' about affiliations on this site?[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, you got my question wrong. I honestly don't know if you teach your class in some kind of bigger structure (and it is not stated here in conservapedia). And i also don't know what legal status conservapedia has (or how its funded). However, your job title should not appear in the affiliations line. If your work leading to this letter was carried out in any organization bigger than just yourself, this is the right thing to go into the affiliations line. If you (seems to be tha case) did this completely on your own behalf, i think i would skip the affiliation. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Stich75 has it correct. "Teacher of pre-college students" is not an affiliation but a job title. Is "www.conservapedia.com" the actual name of the affiliated organization or is it something like 'Conservapedia, Inc.'--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:02, 31 July 2008 (EDT)